Re: [TOTALLY OFFTOPIC] Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems

[Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> From a purely technical perspective, it's hard to understand how Intel
> managed to pour so much energy into such an obviously bad idea.  The
> only explanations seem all to be linked to market strategies.

This history repeats for Intel on several fronts:

Look at the Netburst Pentium 4 desaster, which as scrapped as soon as
the Israel division showed their improved concept based on the P3, which
ran laps around the P4 while at the same time using far less power and
had a bigger yield.

Or the discussion about ECC for desktop devices. Intel argues "not
needed", which is, if you follow the Rowhammer issues, not true. AMD
just does it and it works.

Then there was FB-DIMM back in the 2008s. Nice idea, just, again, too
expensive and disconnected from the market in the end.

And all in all the rather slow improvments on the CPU fronts, the
piecemeal 5% increases sold as "big achievements" every year, while at
the same time all improvements turned out to be major security problems.

I personally am really glad that AMD got their stuff together again and
with their ZenX-Architectures showed Intel how it is done.

What AMD now needs is a hit in the low, lower and ultra-low power
segment.

Grüße,
S°

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.