What's up with Firingsquad?

[Kombatant]

First this: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_hdcp_support/

and now this: http://www.firingsquad.com/features/intel_core_new_low/

Boy they seem pissed

 

[Cowboy X]

First this: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_hdcp_support/

and now this: http://www.firingsquad.com/features/intel_core_new_low/

Boy they seem pissed

I like it .

 

[Druga Runda]

Where’s the self-respect, Intel? Are you that desperate that you’re going to steal the word “core†from our lexicon? That’s pathetic, that’s something a company from the third world trying to compete here might do; that’s like naming your store “Wall-Mart†in the hopes that someone gets confused and walks in. Stop the gimmicks and come up with a real product with real innovation. Maybe “Core†is the Next Big Thing, and maybe not, but either way it deserves its own name.

Great comment

 

[Kanyamagufa]

I also loved the HDCP article.

More power to 'em.

 

[_xxx_]

Great comment

I wonder if Apple chose Intel over AMD just to avoid being sued over 'i' in iTunes etc...

 

[Sxotty]

Yeah whats up with firing squad? They are writing good articles, they should know better.

 

[Zaphod]

and now this: http://www.firingsquad.com/features/intel_core_new_low/

While I kind of agree with the sentiment much of this is a bit misguided. Intel hasn't trademarked the word 'core'. (Although about a hundred others have for various uses, some even computer and semiconductor related.)

What Intel has (applied to have) trademarked is:

CORE INSIDE (Word mark. Various applications: computers et al., education, telecommunications, marketing goods.)
INTEL CORE (Word mark, computers et al.)
INTEL CORE INSIDE DUO (Combined mark, i.e. the logo. Computers et al.)
INTEL CORE INSIDE SOLO (Combined mark, i.e. the logo. Computers et al.)

So: No suing anybody over 'dual core' (or even 'core duo'), but they're obviously hoping that vague marketing and common usage is going to do the rest. Much the same as many think you need 'Centrino' to get wireless on a notebook.

 

[Diplo]

Neeyik has already mentioned this in a more appropriate forum.

 

[Geo]

Well, high dudgeon should be doled out in dollops. I'm fine with FS last couple articles, but hopefully they won't feel the need to keep up a steady stream of assailing. . .

 

[Kombatant]

Neeyik has already mentioned this in a more appropriate forum.

If you read my initial post, you'd realise it's not the article we are discussing here, it's the "attitude".

 

[Zaphod]

Neeyik has already mentioned this in a more appropriate forum.

Sorry about that. Didn't really intend to debate the merit of 'Intel strategy', but rather that articles with an attitude doesn't really help much if the substance is lacking.

 

[ANova]

Yay, more bs intel bashing; it never gets tiring.

 

[Pete]

If you read my initial post, you'd realise it's not the article we are discussing here, it's the "attitude".

So that was the core single(tm) of your argument....

The HDCP issue better justifies the article's attitude, IMO. I mean, if Gateway is selling their 21" widescreen LCD as HDCP-compliant/compatible, you'd think there'd be some DVI+HDCP vid cards on the market.

 

[booomups]

attitude is just right for such jucy articles. love em.

 

[Kombatant]

attitude is just right for such jucy articles. love em.

Depends; but when "attitude" becomes "sensationalism", I don't like it tbh.

 

[dizietsma]

Anand and Hexus seem to be getting more bolshy as well. Has the worm turned ?

 

[Graham]

I guess the article does have a point, but to say it's a tad negative would be a bit of an understatement.

If I were intel I'd also be deeply concerned over Sun's recent multi-core server chip. I can't remember it's name, but it's use of multiple register blocks per thread, per core was very very clever. End result it's efficiency per watt absolutly monstered the xeon and even the opteron chip, can't quite recall but it was somewhere in the region of 10x...


That said, I do believe that we need to move away from x86, itanium may not have been the best solution, but at least they tried. With the rise of managed code over the last 5 years it's at least getting easier to migrate for whenever it does eventually happen.

 

[nutball]

If I were intel I'd also be deeply concerned over Sun's recent multi-core server chip. I can't remember it's name, but it's use of multiple register blocks per thread, per core was very very clever. End result it's efficiency per watt absolutly monstered the xeon and even the opteron chip, can't quite recall but it was somewhere in the region of 10x...

Right, but Niagara (which is is it's name) is a niche chip. It's very good for heavily multi-process/multi-threaded applications where each thread/process is quite lightweight and not FP-intensive. Running web servers is the classic example. Outside its area of expertise it's less impressive as far as I'm aware.

As has been thrashed around here countless times, heavy multi-threading is not where desktop applications are right now. In a few years they may well be, but right now they're not. By the time Intel + AMD are putting eight cores in a desktop CPU it might be time for a rethink, but not just yet.

The transition away from x86 is next to impossible, the inertia is immense (ask Intel's Itanium division!). Maybe it's time for people to stop wishing for a transition away from x86 and accept the fact that x86 is here to stay for the next millennium!

 

[Rolf N]

I like their attitude.

OT:
I think x86 is a great ISA. Its biggest "weakness" (complex decoding, lots of instructions) is also its greatest strength. It's essentially code compression. Bolt transparent code compression onto a RISCy ISA and you'll end up with something very similar to x86.

If we need to properly discuss this further, we should probably open a new thread.

 

[yacoub]

FiringSquad often has the best hardware reviews imho, (at least compared to Anandtech) which is sad because Anandtech could be the best if they actually included more worthwhile cards in their tests. I like that in FSquad reviews I can often see exactly how much improvement the newer cards have over my X800 series card in the latest games. As opposed to Anand which is often testing several brands of the same card against each other or only testing the latest cards from one company (ATI or NVidia) against the latest cards from the other company (ATI or NVidia).
I don't want to have to attempt to piece together three different reviews from a year or more in timespan just to figure out how my X800XL compares to the X1900 AIW in FEAR, for example. It's especially hard to do when Anandtech has changed what games they use to test like three times in that span of time (which is normally a good thing except when you then do not have test data in the latest games for the older cards).
FSquad also does game-centric reviews where they throw like fifteen different GPUs at FEAR and several different CPUs, and show you how they all stack up. That's so much more helpful for me when I'm in the market for a new GPU but I'm not on an FX-60 Anand, and want to know what to look at to best support my 3200+ (it's at 3800+ speeds now though hehe).