And they don't know when to shutup.Holy hell do rich people love to talk.
You mean when he stole his operating system from a guy in Texas.Bill lost his way a long time ago.
It works fine so long as you remember to wait ten seconds after clicking you mouse.Considering how screwed up windows 11 updates have been lately, he's the LAST person that should be spouting off about Intel.
This and also their AAA game releases. Forza was a shitshow and now MSFS 2024 is an absolute mess. A company releasing a mess is not unique but these two are an indication of what is going on internally.Considering how screwed up windows 11 updates have been lately, he's the LAST person that should be spouting off about Intel.
What's with all the sarcasm against Bill, lol?
If anything I wish he'd still be leading Microsoft, considering what a mess windows 11 is.
Bill is such a tragedy of a Tech billionaire. There is no way an inventor ever goes into the type of work he has been doing in the last decade.
"Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks! Hahahaha!"You mean when he stole his operating system from a guy in Texas.
True, however all the smack we talk is way more interesting than whatever Bill "Sorry I ruined software let me go help Africa" Gates is spouting.
Can we all just admit that Bill Gates is a pedophile that used to fly out on the Lolita Express to Jeffrey's island adventure. And unless we forget, Gates tried to kill most of us with his friend Fauci and their bio-engineered virus. This man belongs behind bars, whether or not he has an opinion on Intel.
yet Intel maintains a dominant market share. This isn't a failure; it's a testament to their success.
Second, Intel's CPUs are affected by the meltdown issue, unlike AMD's, which leads to performance degradation only on their chips from the need for mitigation strategies through code.
Third, Intel does not implement 3D caching, which could enhance performance and efficiency
IMO, you could only count on Bill to make that mess worse!What's with all the sarcasm against Bill, lol?
If anything I wish he'd still be leading Microsoft, considering what a mess windows 11 is.
Just because he is behind Big Pharma, using the same "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" but on our health now.What's with all the sarcasm against Bill, lol?
If anything I wish he'd still be leading Microsoft, considering what a mess windows 11 is.
Bill is such a tragedy of a Tech billionaire. There is no way an inventor ever goes into the type of work he has been doing in the last decade.
There is no room for humility when you have 100 billion dollars, you really need to continue to evolve oneself and society. The reason why resources are justifiably allocated in unbalanced amounts to people is to allow them to show the rest of us what can be done by a human with such resources, Bill acquired the resources and since has been trying to acquire more in the same manner, no inventions, no innovations, no evolution just raw hunger for more. Don't fall for the marketing.How is he a tragedy? What story are you entertaining to make him a "tragedy"... to you? He did his part, and instead of trying to one up himself he retired and went into philanthropy. That is NOT the norm for tech billionaires, so I have nothing but respect for him that he chose that humble path.
Isn't that what Gelsinger did with 18A?AMD bet the company with Zen, that's what Intel needs to do.
AMD has been consistently offering better and cheaper CPUs over the past decade, yet Intel maintains a dominant market share. This isn't a failure; it's a testament to their success. After 10 years of being the second in performance but first in cost CPU provider, Intel should have a market share of 1-5%, not 60-70%. For comparison, AMD holds about 15% of the GPU market because has less performance than Nvidia and despite being cheaper than Nvidia.
Intel faces just three challenges. First, their fabrication plants (fabs) are lagging behind TSMC's in terms of node advancement and yield. To mask this, they employ unconventional techniques and introduce asymmetrical core designs that don't align with the symmetric thread management expected by the operating system. They opt for less silicon engaging ("efficient" cores) to reduce overheating, but this is forced due to the less advanced fabrication nodes they have.
Second, Intel's CPUs are affected by the meltdown issue, unlike AMD's, which leads to performance degradation only on their chips from the need for mitigation strategies through code.
Third, Intel does not implement 3D caching, which could enhance performance and efficiency. To reach in the RAM for data cost 300 cpu cycles instead of 100 cycle for L3 cache 20 cycles for L2 and 3 cycles for L1.
If Intel addresses these three issues—improving fab node advancement, aligning core designs with operating system expectations and adopting 3D caching they could reclaim a significant portion of the CPU market, potentially reaching again the 90%.
However, even without these improvements, Intel continues to sell more expensive and less performant chips and consumers still purchase them. This is puzzling because, unlike operating systems where users are often forced to use the OS due to application compatibility, CPUs are hardware components that users can freely replace. Despite Intel's CPUs being less efficient and more expensive, they remain popular because most users primary use cases are basic tasks like document editing, web browsing and occasional gaming, which today the CPUs can handle adequately.
The most significant issue isn't that Intel doesn't produce competitive CPUs; it's that consumers continue to choose Intel's products over better alternatives.
After all is a responsibility for the people in Intel to put the maximum effort to keep that great company in good shape even if their competition doesn't penetrate the market.