Cartoon by A Bisht
Day before yesterday, Intel launched Nehalem Xeon processors. At the launch Intel's Patrick Gelsinger said that, "The Intel Xeon processor 5500 series is the foundation for the next decade of innovation."
Nehalem is quite different from any of its predecessors. However, what’s amazing is that many of the ‘groundbreaking, innovative technologies’ are quite similar to technologies AMD pioneered years ago, 2003 to be precise. After nearly six years of telling customers that the AMD Opteron processor architecture was the wrong answer, Intel finally delivered 'Nehalem' - which some might call a copy of 'Opteron', at least as far as the architecture is concerned.
Memory controller integration into the silicon die is one of the many features included in the new Intel architecture and this is believed to boost the whole system performance significantly. However, this is a standard feature on all of AMD’s server products since 2003. Nehalem is also supported by a high speed internal bus known as Quick Path Interconnect. It will replace current FSB (Front Side Bus) in most of the current design. Again, the concept is quite similar to existing HyperTransport technology available in AMD products and is known as Direct Connect Architecture (DCA).
Now the rival chipmaker AMD has always said that the Direct Connect Architecture (DCA) is the one the future will ride on. And that too six years ago, in 2003. The 2003 processor of AMD, Opteron is based on the same architecture.
Products like Nehalem and technologies like Quick Path Interconnect are simply Intel’s admission that AMD was right all along about an integrated memory controller being the key to superior processor architecture.
AMD doesn’t feel at all disappointed by its rival’s delayed acceptance of the fact in public, but as the ones writing for our readers, we definitlely are.
The first reaction that we aroused, after hearing about this development is , “Has Intel suppressed the truth?” and that too for six years.
If a product based on Direct Connect Architecture (DCA) can be the face of the future in 2009, why couldn’t it be in the year 2003? There is more to it then what appears from outside.
Is it an example of a company using its propaganda machine to suppress the truth?
In some online circles Intel’s Xeon series processors are termed as the copy of AMD for many years now, but they can be brushed aside as some partial opinions, but what about the admission from the horse’s own mouth.
What about the consumers' perspective? Weren't they misinformed by Intel about Opteron? Is it ethical for big companies to take advantage of consumers' trust and manipulate them?
What if the same tactics are used for the products meant to serve regular consumers, who like big businesses, don't have the resources to research their product choices ?
In an industry where the product capabilities double in just eighteen months, not accepting something for six years is tantamount to a scandal and a big disservice to the consumer.
[We would like to know our readers' opinions on this matter. Please leave your comments and thoughts expressing your point of view.]
No comments
Post a Comment