Barrett: Looking back, but leaping forward
Published: 07 Mar 2005 12:20 GMT
How significant is the move to dual-core technology?
A dual core is a little bit more of an evolutionary change. We've gone from single-core to hybrid, threaded to dual-core, and then multicore, so it's kind of a more gradual transition. But I think it's an important transition, because it really allows you to continue to take Moore's Law and crank out more functionality and more performance. You just can't continue to crank clock speed with the number of transistors... So dual core and multicore is probably a seminal change, just from that one aspect, to be able to continue Moore's Law going forward.
How do you think the industry is going to evolve? Do you think there's a real opportunity for someone to develop a new type of transistor?
I think the biggest challenge to the existing companies is the same challenge the vacuum tube guys had 50 years ago. Not one of the vacuum tube manufacturers made the transition to transistors.
GE probably came as close as anybody, but they dropped out of the semiconductor business what, 15 years ago? So the real challenge is: If something new comes along... how quickly can you adapt to that? We try to guard against being blindsided by (way of) all the research programs we have with universities, where a lot of that basic research is taking place. We're kind of trying to keep our fingers in every possible new technology that could replace the CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) transistor, and I don't think there is any indication as to a clear winner... today.
You guys are facing an antitrust investigation in Japan. There have been some reports that Japan is preparing to rule against Intel in some way. Are you prepared to change any of your business practices there?
We don't think we've done anything wrong in Japan, so other than that, I can't comment on what the Japanese FTC may do or may not do.
You haven't heard anything from them?
If I did, I wouldn't make it public before they made it public anyway. But you know, you get a lot of interesting dynamics, where the FTCs in different countries have different charters, and much like US government agencies on occasion, they flex their muscles. I don't know whether it's one of those issues, or they have some definitive complaints, what have you. All we know they did is raid our office and interview some of our employees.
Could you talk a little bit about AMD?
They have been a competitor for 10 years. I think compared to 10 years ago, we have higher market-segment share in the processor business. I think from a competitive standpoint they've been good for Intel because they obviously — as any competitor would — keep you on your toes. They keep providing an environmental situation where you want to move technology forward. That's what competition is all about.
So we've competed with AMD for my entire existence at Intel, and I would expect we'll be competing with them 10 years from today.
How should a consumer relate to the importance of dual core?
Fair question. I would only tell the average consumer... it's the way that the industry is going to continue to follow Moore's Law going forward — to increase the processing power in an exponential fashion over time... Dual core is really important because that's how it's happening. Multicore is tomorrow... Those are the magic ingredients that the average consumer will never see, but they will experience [them] through the performance of the machine.
Previous
Did you find this article useful?
123 out of 283 people found this useful
- Share this article:
