The good Doctor of Pervasive 64 bit Disinformation has started running Google ads. I have nothing against this. All power to him if he can make money writing what he writes best. However, what I cannot understand is that he has ads promoting Intel products on his page. Surely his ethics would prevent him promoting Intel's products since he believes they all deserve to be consigned to a landfill. I left him a post yesterday asking what was going on but he did not post my comment. Here's the screen grab:
See it for yourself:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------------------
UPDATEI tried clicking the ad links at the bottom of the page...
Link to article...and for 3 out of 4 the first link on the subsequent Google ad page took me to Intel's web site. That's just hilarious man! I really hope the Doctor is getting a good laugh too...hopefully to the bank with all the money I hope he's making from Intel via Google.
22 comments:
That is disguting..I hope Google bans him from earning from AdSense from that atrocious crap of his.
My dear Duploxx...
When I started this blog, rightly so the first pieces of feedback I got were pick a side or it's going to be boring. And for now I am calling Intel to regain momentum over the next few quarters until K8L launches. I've said this before, my assessment of how the market will swing may be completely different a few months from now. Or...even a few days from now if something dramatically changes.
What I am trying to NOT do here:
1. Is not have an opinion on how the next qtr will turn out because that would be boring for all and a waste of my analytical thinking to not translate it to this blog.
2. Blindly without thought predict instant death for either Intel or AMD. My Q3 call was AMD will have a better quarter than Intel when compared to what Wall Street was forecasting and it did. Hardly the act of someone blindly bashing AMD.
3. Take every happening in the market place and turn it into an instant win for either Intel or AMD...because that would be the definition of "fanboyism".
My blog is a sequential train of thought on how things are going to shape in the market between Intel & AMD over the next few quarters. I fear people are dropping in, reading a single post and making the assumption I am only pro-Intel. If you want the true depth of the blog, you need to go back and start reading from the older posts.
I hope this clarifies the intent of this blog.
-:)
Duploxx:
P.S. - along the way, I also intend to have some fun correcting my good friend the Doctor and pointing out the defects in some of his calculations. So far, I am yet to see a rebuttal in the places I have identified holes in his reasoning.
To Duploxxx,
I believe you are forgetting the fact that Sharikou's position is so blatantly biased that any person refutting any of his claims can be perceived as Intel biased.
And the fact of the matter is, because of AMD's poor showing in terms of product performance, execution and process technology that anyone trying to point out this reality is perceived as Intel biased.
Technologists weren't kind to Intel when they pointed out how it was over taken by AMD's series of hammer products. Why should they be kind to AMD now that it's behind?
actually ever since his blog contains ads, i stop going there :) Now i'm going to the scientia's one instead.
Duploxxx your assumption about this blog is completely off base. Unlike the good doctor 180 doesnt make up facts and come up with numbers from his ass.
And he can understand simple logic like MAJOR battery recall equals faulty battery and not core duo blowing up!!! Did you even read sharikou's recent blog... his recent posts ever since core 2 duo took the crown from AMD have been bordering on mental retardation.
Joke of the internet sharikou is.I think the doctor took AMD's whooping by core 2 duo too hard and has gone into a depression to where nothing he says makes sense anymore. http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Journal-Pervasive-64-bit-Computing-ROFL-ftopict207692.html
Pls don't personalize, Sharikou
writes about/for what Sharikou
interested in. Does it matter what/how
Sharikou makes $$
Ashenman:
1. I agree, Intel thought they could get away with outdated and useless technology through marketing. They deserved to have their ass kicked and have allowed AMD to become a viable competitor much faster than would have happened in the due course. They deserve the 20$ stock price they have.
2. On process technology - I think you've got to differentiate between mArch and process technology. Intel is definitely a generation ahead which gives them certain advantages. Though I think AMD is better at ramping a new process technology once they start. There are some inherent advantages to being one generation ahead. It allows Intel to do certain things like decide to go with a cache heavy core mArch while they get CSI ready for example. It also gives them cost of manufacture advantages.
So there are pro's and cons on both sides but if the question is purely process technology then Intel's lead allows them to be advantaged (or in the case of Netburst less disadvantaged) than AMD. Where AMD kicks their ass right now is in mArh design. I have to say...for a company that spends 5 billion $s annually on R&D, the output of that investment for the last few years until Core has been pathetic. Someone should get fired.
Your blog has deteriorated as you follow the same tactics as Sharikou. You cherry pick only the information that supports your biases and then proudly announce this out of context. Sometimes your posts are completely false yet you never correct them on the main page. I know of at least two of your cherry picked stories that have turned out to be false. You seem to be racing Sharikou to the bottom.
you are forgetting the fact that Sharikou's position is so blatantly biased that any person refutting any of his claims can be perceived as Intel biased.
I refute Sharikou's stuff all the time. I still get called an AMD fanboy.
Technologists weren't kind to Intel because it wasn't trying to change its architecture after it fell behind.
Architecture design took 5 years to complete during the P3/P4 days from definition (guessing the future technology requirements) to deployment (design complete, high volume manufacturing ready). The mere fact that Intel came up with Core/Core2 in less time than usual when Hammer came out shows you that the old company is very adaptive and was able to change its uArch quickly. You can never claim that Intel (or even AMD) doesn’t try and change their design in response to competition. They have to, to be in business. They both have R&D projecting up to 7 to 15 years ahead and have design plans 5 to 7 years ahead. So they constantly have plans to change.
It was going to ignore performance as long as it would sell because of marketing.
How can you claim this as if Intel never came out with botched up EE’s. Intel tried to respond with what they had. Again, changing silicon design doesn’t come easy. When a company commits to a uArch, they have to live with it until the next one in the pipeline becomes ready.
AMD is updating their architecture already, so it's not like they're mismanaging.
And my point was AMD deserved to be treated unkindly in a similar manner Intel was when it was behind in performance. In fact they should be treated worst because the performance gap is unprecedented and all they can show for is AM2, 4X4 and K8L which will just be on par at best. The question on mismanagement will be answered depending on what AMD comes out with in the next 2 years. I’m not quite sure that they have a strong roadmap right now.
Intel now has a new architecture that wont be its main selling point for a long time, while AMD has a new architecture coming that wont need to be if it wants to stay competitive.
I simply can’t understand the logic of Intel with 80% market share then needing to be competitive while doesn’t need to AMD with only 25% market share? The impact of Core2 on AMD’s profits increases every day that AMD has no response to it because of Intel’s aggressive ramp. It happened to Intel and surely will happen to AMD, if not worse, if it doesn’t respond.
Yes, Intel is ahead in terms of raw transistor performance, but in terms of how those transistors can be implemented, how reliable their implementation in the product line is, and how efficient they are, AMD is basically on par with Intel, and is so with an older process.
Not true. Intel hasn’t played its SOI card yet while already AMD has. When the cost becomes justifiable, Intel will switch to SOI see a big jump in transistor performance (speed and power). The mere fact that Core2 on bulk silicon beats AMD/IBM’s SOI shows you how much far ahead Intel is in process technology. On uArch technology, it is obvious by now that Intel has the best design. But I have to give credit to AMD’s IMC implementation though.
If you actually want this to be a quality blog then you should:
Negate the false articles on the front page. Put a note in the incorrect articles saying that the information the article was based on turned out to be wrong. This includes the AMD layoffs, $500 notebook, and channel abandoning AMD articles.
Stop chasing Sharikou. Sharikou says things are totally off the wall. Skip those things and only respond when he says something that could be plausible.
Stop cherry picking snippets that support Intel. Your blog ends up as a biased piece of swiss cheese.
For example, the INQ just did a piece that was critical of Intel's 965 chipset. If I were an AMD fan cherry picking articles I would pounce on this and get it up on my blog as proof that Intel will fail. However, my perspective is a bit broader than that. There is no indication yet that either Intel chipset or motherboard sales are falling off.
Intel is not currently in a good position against AMD. If I get time I'll do an article and explain this in detail. It has to do with Intel's profit ratio by segment. Essentially, Intel is gaining in the least profitable area.
Scientia:
You need to read my posts and the comments thoroughly before you comment. And then stop mis-quoting me because you are reading what you want to read. Which is everything is an AMD attack. FYI - I did update the blog on the sub 500$ Dell notebooks once the SKUs were announced...if you bothered to check you would have known this. And I have not said the channel is abandoning AMD. Read the post and the comments again. I said if the supply shortage continues to fester then it will become a trust issue for AMD in another couple of quarters.
Get it together man...I'm wasting too many ergs correcting your one sided interpretation of my comments. I do the blog in my limited spare time so I've only got time to respond to logical arguments based on facts. I'm happy to keep publishing your comments but I don't have the time to keep repeating myself so I'm only going to be able to respond to your comments that are based on fact or seem like a logical enough POV.
Scientia:
I agree with your comment on Intel graphics. I said this earlier during my posts on Intel's re-structuring on what they would divest that they should get rid of their graphics because they are aweful. However, I also said that they probably have to keep graphics because strategically they will need a graphics capability to compete in the future. But they need to dramatically improve their technology here and I don't really see that happening.
Your comment on where Intel is gaining share is insightful. You're referring to the fact that they are probably gaining in desktop while losing in notebook and server. You're right on the money here. My own assessment is they will continue to lose share in mobile but will win back some of the share they had lost in server...at least in 2P. On desktops - the ASPs and margins here are definitely declining and while neither AMD nor Intel would choose to walk from this segment...I think AMD has a better strategic focus on mobile and sever while Intel needs to go after the big revenue base in desktop they had ceded.
(Let me know when you write the article. I'd like to read it.)
However, there are a few things I think Intel is betting on in the future. The first is Santa Rosa on mobile...and while Wimax is still far away Santa Rosa in itself continues to help them move their mobile roadmap ahead. For me the key thing here is if they can get Robson working well on Vista then that is a compelling selling point for end users. Second is ultra-mobile PCs. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out. I think the category is viable but they need to bring the system price down to around 600 bucks. A little more than the price of a smartphone today. The third is VPro. This is a big play for them with IT outsourcing houses like EDS who can lower cost of managing IT infrastructures with technologies like this. However, launching this on desktop is silly considering that most large corporations now give almost everyone a notebook. However, I saw an article that they would have a mobile version with Santa Rosa so I would expect this initiative to start to play out at that time. Lastly - Wimax. Which is too far away to have an impact in the next 4 quarters even though trials are happening around the world and they have traction through Clearwire and Sprint in the US.
Over the long term, I think what we will see is a higher share of market for AMD in the traditional businesses but if Intel is successful with some of these bets then they would have created new categories/markets with good margins for themselves. Personally, this is where I would like to see the world. I think Intel fixates too much on competing with AMD instead of bringing new innovation and technology to market quickly and effectively that a company with their resources can do.
ashenman, I don't know about Intel vs AMD 'transistor performance', but that's rather faulty to say that they spend all that money and are 'only' 30% better.
http://news.com.com/2300-1006_3-6119652.html
http://techreport.com/etc/2005q3/idf/index.x?pg=3
http://www.intel.com/research/platform/sp/hybridlaser.htm
I'm not trying to prove Intel as more 'innovative' but their research goes beyond transistors.
I don't think Intel will have to scale the FSB..since by the time Intel will have octo cores(dual native quads) they'll most likely have Nehalem(CSI+IMC).
Scientia, ask yourself; what topics do you like to discuss in your blog? That's right, anything to refute Intel. And you accuse him of being one sided? And only a fool would bother bragging about AMD's low end integrated graphics.
Intel not in a good position against AMD? Compared to what period of time? What's AMD got going for it, the 10% 4S market and being unable to supply the demand?
What technologies would Intel bring to us if AMD weren't around S180? Wasn't it because of AMD that they stopped the GHz race and got Core:)
I'd like AMD to beefen up so we could have an ATI vs Nvidia situation. RIP ATI:(
Red said...I don't think Intel will have to scale the FSB..since by the time Intel will have octo cores(dual native quads) they'll most likely have Nehalem(CSI+IMC).
This is almost a sure thing. FSB allows only upto 4 core to share the BUS. To have anything higher, you need 2 FSB and a bridge.
ashenman said...
You might want to recheck that Opteron losing marketshare idea. Gateway creating an entire new Opteron lineup, Dell doing the same, and HP expanding theirs? That doesn't bode well, as so far, only HP and Dell have announced kentsfield servers.
nope, actually all the tier 1 OEMs have announced the quad-core server. and AMD having more OEM support is a plus, but it doesn't guarantee for it not losing share, which is a fact for last Q3.
The graphics thing will be pretty interesting by '08, and Nvidia will be entering the CPU market around then (right?), and Intel just bought a graphics processing company, and is probably planning its own graphics card product.
Just curious, what graphic company has Intel bought?
1. AMD definitely has traction and good presence in the server market. But I want to clarify. Woodcrest kicks Opteron ass in 2P and Opteron kicks Woodcrest and any other competing Intel technology in 4P servers. 2P is 90% of the market while 4P is significantly higher margin. So...while Intel may get back market share (which is what I was referring to) and possibly revenue share, AMD is still going to be sitting pretty in the high margin part of the business. So it's definitely not game over AMD. Having said that - technically Pointer is correct. SKUs do not = market share. But more SKUs definitely help market share. I think we'll have to wait and watch. My only comment is AMD was like a run away train in the server business and Woodcrest has managed to slow that train down somewhat in Q3. I think that's a fair and unbiased comment...
2. Pointer - I don't know about Intel buying a graphics company but they have licensed the Power VR engine from Imagination and have been hiring graphics engineers agressively even as they do lay offs in other areas:
http://www.imgtec.com/news/Release/index.asp?ID=409
Agreed - Intel needs to stop Opteron not only from a server success standpoint but also because Opteron is where AMD is making good margins which gives them the money to fund other product lines/activities.
as many companies only go with licensing and leasing deals on their servers but would sorely love to be able to have a machine that could run virtual machines very easily, but can't do that with Dell or Gateway's current licensing system.
What do you mean again here? Intel's platform cannot run virtual machine? if so, then you must be kidding me.
ntel's platform cannot currently effectively run a virtual machine with 4 processors, which is really the breaking point for making a virtual machine generate good returns on your investment, unless you're upgrading from a really weak machine that didn't need a hardware upgrade for your software in the first place (not likely).
Intel's current 4p platforms are weak on processor to processor bandwidth, which is what virtualization requires quite a bit of. Also, these solutions are more expensive than AMD's and underperformed them.
May i know what is the role of the inter processor communication in the virtualization and what % does it involve?
Also, how do you define the return of investment? All i see is a pure statement, without any quantifiable variable.
after people read the comments to his posts and realize intel is not the devil and is actually (generally) the better choice right now, they can turn around and go straight to a dealer through the convenient ads on his site.
good work.
When you run virtualization you basically have one sub-operating system that all the other operating systems contact to figure out what hardware they use. I'm pretty certain that if you're going to be running a very simple process that needs to have a lot of simple throughput concerning task allocation and scheduling and you're going to run lots of other tasks that are directly dependent on all of the above, and you have a multi-processor system that's been optimized with task affinity and the like, that all those other OS's tasks are going to have to have communication with the main sub-operating system. This means core to core communication.
Now, maybe virtualization doesn't work that way (which is how it has always been described to me and how it would make the most sense), and if not then please correct me.
Post a Comment