Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Intel Corporation Message Board

theblueredmonk 228 posts  |  Last Activity: 19 hours ago Member since: Aug 14, 2004
  • Reply to

    History

    by semi_equip_junkie Mar 13, 2015 6:41 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 14, 2015 12:15 PM Flag

    Have you been drinking your home brew again?

    Are you really trying to justify the sinking of an unarmed passenger liner? Unless you stop the ship and search it, you can never be sure what it's carrying. But as a liner, you know for sure it's got thousands of people on board. Days earlier that same U boat stopped and sank a merchantman - after allowing the crew to get into the lifeboats...

    While I agree with you on Versaille (as most historians would), I struggle to see any major similarity between Russia today and Germany of 1936? Care to elaborate?

  • Reply to

    The rumor

    by irishbreeds Mar 12, 2015 9:39 AM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 12, 2015 4:29 PM Flag

    Do you know what chip is in the iWatch? I tried googling to find out, but found no definitive info. I didn't think Apple had designed a chip that small.
    ----

    Almost certainly ARM ISA based, due to the watch running a version of iOS.

    In terms of CPU, it could be a low clocked version of Apples own Swift, or a bog standard ARM core. If it is running a 64bit version of iOS, then it's probably ARM's A53.

  • Reply to

    The rumor

    by irishbreeds Mar 12, 2015 9:39 AM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 12, 2015 10:23 AM Flag

    Do you foresee any 'game changers'?
    ----

    Depends on what you define as a game changer. While this is good news for Intel, it's had this socket win before. Apple would be paying, what $10 for this chip?

    A real game changer would be Apple dropping it's own App processor for one designed by Intel (ISA switch), but that's not going to happen. What about Intel fabbing for Apple? Possible.

  • Reply to

    The rumor

    by irishbreeds Mar 12, 2015 9:39 AM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 12, 2015 10:02 AM Flag

    You can love all you want today. All i'm saying is IF the rumor is true (which seems to be since no one is denying it) then it will be a game changer.
    ----

    It's the modem...Not a game changer at all.

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 12, 2015 5:35 AM Flag

    I think arm said this would never happen because Intel phone chips use too much power are too big are too slow bla blah blah. Imagine Brits being so full oh it. That is less than polite blokes.
    ----

    You seem to think this win is the app processor, it's not it's the baseband/modem. I

    Intel (infineon) has had this socket win before in the iphone. While good news for Intel, this win has no impact on ARM (the company) as Intel's modem contains an ARM CPU. It's bad news for QCOM.

    You should also keep an eye out for the S6 launch, as Intel might be inside them as well (Intel won a few Samsung baseband sockets for 20nm SoC phones).

  • theblueredmonk by theblueredmonk Mar 11, 2015 10:26 AM Flag

    "SAN JOSE, Calif. — More than 100 chips in or headed for production have taped out using FinFET-based process technologies, according to EDA tool vendor Synopsys Inc. The chips include a quad ARM Cortex-A72 device made in TSMC’s 16nm process, it said."

    "In the past month, HiSilicon Technologies, the silicon division of China telecom giant Huawei, taped out at TSMC a 16nm quad A72 device with more than 50 million instances. It has a 16nm A57 device also made in the fab and already shipping in systems, said Mary Ann White, director of product marketing for Synopsys’ Galaxy Design Platform."

    "Most of the issues around the need for double-patterning lithography got worked out in the 20nm nodes with chip designs that started as early as 2005, said White. At the 10nm node, foundries are starting to choose diverging paths with some adopting self-aligned double patterning and others moving to triple patterning, she said."

    from eetimes.

  • Reply to

    Intel's 1st Xeon SoC Twists ARM

    by wallisweaver Mar 9, 2015 11:43 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 10, 2015 10:49 AM Flag

    it's just about the CPU

    should be:
    it's not just about the CPU

  • Reply to

    Intel's 1st Xeon SoC Twists ARM

    by wallisweaver Mar 9, 2015 11:43 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 10, 2015 9:12 AM Flag

    ARM is ZERO and DONE in servers. I know blueredmonk will disagree with me ad nauseum. LOL.
    ---

    I disagree with you when you are wrong:)

    This is an impressive chip by Intel but if you think this will cause the ARMy to pack up their bags and walk home, think again. This chip also shows how serious Intel is taking the threat.

  • Reply to

    Marsavian

    by boob_patrol Mar 8, 2015 4:14 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 10, 2015 8:54 AM Flag

    With respect, lets keep this civil and unemotional.

    The fact is that climategate does not support your view at all - it actually weakens it. Read the link. The CRU has been investigated by 8 different organisations and you can read their reports online. The Verdict? Exoneration or withdrawal of all major or serious charges. The comments you posted are taken out of context, I suggest you read the original comments.

    You have also posted other dubious 'facts' to support your argument, clearly lifted from certain websites or blogs. An example, why Greenland is called Greenland. It's not because it was once green...

    However, there are certain aspects of your viewpoint that I do agree with, such as issues with the models and especially the hijacking of the science by the loony environmentalists. No I am not one of them (as an example, I am a supporter of nuclear energy).

  • Reply to

    Marsavian

    by boob_patrol Mar 8, 2015 4:14 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 9, 2015 5:58 PM Flag

    for some reason I can't post links, but that commentary was on wikipedia under Climatic Research Unit email controversy.

  • Reply to

    Marsavian

    by boob_patrol Mar 8, 2015 4:14 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 9, 2015 5:56 PM Flag

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

  • Reply to

    Marsavian

    by boob_patrol Mar 8, 2015 4:14 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 9, 2015 5:55 PM Flag

    Er, no.

    "The controversy has focused on a small number of emails with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t". This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability, but was grossly mischaracterised by critics."

    "Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high."

  • Reply to

    Marsavian

    by boob_patrol Mar 8, 2015 4:14 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 9, 2015 5:26 PM Flag

    FYI - the climategate e-mail leaks show nothing of the sort. All of the scientists involved agreed with the consensus view. Their comments where taken out of context, or misunderstood.

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 8, 2015 4:50 PM Flag

    FYI, the die cost of these extra four cores (for the ARMy) are tiny. Yes, people do choose an 8 core over a 4 core one. Afterall, 8 is better right?

    The original article isn't strong enough, having 8 cores is useless in a phone. But the OEM's in certain parts of the world demanded it and firms (such as QCOM) had to change tack. There is even talk of a 12 core part coming.

  • Reply to

    Nenni

    by semi_equip_junkie Mar 6, 2015 4:45 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 6, 2015 4:47 PM Flag

    Schleimscheisser ... excretes slime from his or her....

    Nice:)

  • Reply to

    II love the "mood" on this board

    by semi_equip_junkie Mar 6, 2015 1:22 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 6, 2015 4:19 PM Flag

    TSMC can not even shrink the backend (only marginally) compared to 20nm planar
    ---

    FYI:

    "According to TSMC’s predictions, its 10nm FinFET will offer over 25 per cent clock-rate improvement over the 16nm FinFET+ at the same power, it is projected to be 45 per cent more energy efficient and is predicted to provide 2.2 times higher density over 16nm FinFET+, which is a massive improvement. Risk production of 10nm FinFET chips is scheduled to start in the fourth quarter of 2015."

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 6, 2015 4:06 PM Flag

    Why would Intel selling a $5 SoC make QCOM done for?

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 5, 2015 3:08 PM Flag

    You can go on and on about benchmarks but its all BS. No one really cares. The OEM's are the manufacturers of mobile devices and they only care about what they can sell and benchmarks are not it. OVER AND OUT.
    ----

    Erm, it's you that's going on and on about benchmarks:)

    Look, you are right phone companies sell phones and not benchmarks, but how do you think they segment their market? By guessing? Or do they do something rational and have the top end being the best and the bottom being the worst? How do they quantify "best" and "worst"?

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 5, 2015 1:01 PM Flag

    If you don't have an ARM spec benchmark, keep quiet. The OEM's choose only what their customers want. Not because of some idiot geekbench #$%$.
    ----

    Do you even know what spec is? Do you know the issues with that benchmark suite? Do you know why it's not used in mobile? You should google for that anandtech article as it goes into some detail - it's not all rosy for that Samsung SoC.

    While there are legitimate issues with GB (as with all benchmarks), that article also shows that GB can be highlight increases in performance (relative to the spec benchmark that was used).

    The OEM's are the phone companies...and yes, they can be dictated to by the phone operators (hence all this octa core nonsense)...and they all use these 'idiot' retail benchmarks (as well as their own)...

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Mar 5, 2015 9:59 AM Flag

    [You took this from a forum. So, just another ARM fanboi's worthless opinion.]

    Nope, all my own words. It's also fact.

    As a side, I'll be joining the "Boycott Wallisweaver" movement while you continue to behave like a child.

INTC
32.08-0.270(-0.83%)Apr 24 4:00 PMEDT