I think you've trolled me with this statement.
Really? .....Seems that the thread regards
AMD's Q2 financial statement,
your post was the first to mention Intel and invite comparison.
In what way does AMD's anything got to do with lack of advancement on the i7 platform? .
Ummm...maybe this... "
It's nice to see AMD not floundering about, but I'd prefer to see them make Intel sweat again"
Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. Basically, in the desktop market, Intel is a powerhouse that AMD isn't close to threatening.
No speaking engagements at the AMD Appreciation Society in your future then...
Because there is no pressure from AMD .
So ...the future isn't fusion ?
I think you'll find that IBM market
workstation systems using both Intel and AMD components, and Power7 isn't likely to find it's way into a desktop anytime soon...so you're better off just using the AMD v Intel analogy, however much you wanted to avoid it.
Intel has stopped competing and is milking the market. Hense, development of the i7 or X58 platform has "stagnated", ceased to change, failed to improve.
Answer me this...How would
YOU have Intel improve the the X58 platform? -this isn't a rhetorical question. Would you say for instance...
Develop a short-lived ICH11R I/O controller to support native USB3 and SATA 6G ? (which in turn would require Intel to validate every USB3 device as compatible with it's I/O hub)
Native support past DDR3-1066, even though mainboard manufacturers already support DDR3-1600/1866/2000/2133 ?
So, in one corner we have a segment of users that want increased feature-sets, and in the opposite corner a vocal group of consumers having trouble coming to grips with multiple socket options and ever growing feature sets that go mostly untapped by the vast majority of users.
At least to the degree at which things moved when AMD was a threat.
The last time AMD was a creditable threat to Intel, the latter was fielding the Pentium 4 as it's desktop CPU.
In August 2009, I purchased an i7 920 for $270 US from Newegg (cheapest at the time). Today that same processor now runs for... $295 US on Newegg.
MSRP for the Core i7 920 (SKU BX80601920) at launch was
$US284 Since the 920 is effectively EOL after being superceded by the (cheaper) 930 at the same pricing point, hardly surprising that stock is both low (and hence overpriced) at newegg. You'll find no end of cheaper prices for the same SKU at
$250 and
$250 for example. While Intel are far from being a philanthrophic organisation, cherry picking numbers (one of which is unsubstantiated) to suit an argument that can be easily rebutted probably doesn't advance your cause.
And last time I checked Newegg isn't in Turkheadupass.
A little disappointing to see a senior member (an "Ambassador" no less) of an international forum exhibit such xenophobic prejudice.
And just a parting thought -tho I still await your input regarding improving the X58 platform, hopefully sans your geographical "humour"
Intel's foundry/CPU process is by a large margin more efficient than AMD's. Intel, if they wanted to could quite easily price AMD into bankruptcy, but of course it is required that Intel cannot have a monopoly in the market, so AMD stay in the game. Entering a price war with AMD would gain Intel nothing since it has to have competition in the marketplace, and would result in either AMD receiving financial assistance/bailout/loan restructuring, sold off to another buyer who would likely invest further funds, or broken up (AMD server, desktop, ATI, GloFo stake, IP) and sold off to other entities....unknown entities, as opposed to the nice-guys-who-play-fair-but-don't-know-how-to-market that presently run it.
Why try for the whole nine yards when pounding it up the middle an inch at a time is more beneficial?