Kelvyn Taylor

Another week, another processor. Yawn. I remember a few years ago when every new processor announcement from Intel or AMD or Cyrix was awaited with bated breath. Well, not quite, but there was a certain amount of eager anticipation among those with an interest in technology. There was an awful lot happening in processor design back then as the chip companies made major - and regular - advances in processor architecture.

These days there's very little interest for end-users - take Intel's new Prescott version of the Pentium 4, for instance. Its clock speed is a fraction of a gigahertz higher, it has a few more obscure SSE instructions, more cache, a bit more heat output and little else. Its main claim to fame is that it's made with Intel's new 90nm fabrication technology. Which means what to a business buyer? Very little, of course - increased manufacturing efficiencies do not make for a compelling new product, although they're obviously very important to Intel's goal of making sure Gordon Moore's predictions for better processors are met - I refuse to call a self-fulfilling prophecy a "law".

Of course, people will buy systems with the new processors - they have little choice if they want a new PC - but nobody's going to immediately scrap their existing Pentium 4 systems just to have one.

AMD's launch of the AMD64 architecture last year was much more interesting for potential buyers. Here was a commodity 64bit chip - the Opteron - with full 32bit x86 compatibility and multiprocessor capability. It made economic sense to cash-strapped businesses needing more capable servers or workstations, to the extent that they might well consider scrapping their existing expensive kit.

Intel seems to be in danger of forgetting the prime business directive that the customer is always right. I've just finished reading a book on the history of watchmaking - Revolutions in Time, by David S Landes - an often forgotten high-tech industry that's been around for centuries, and which during that time has generated some valuable lessons that shouldn't be ignored by today's technology giants.

One lesson is that customers don't necessarily value technical superiority - as shown by the decline of the UK's watchmaking industry because it wouldn't compromise on quality or deliver products that it regarded as frivolous. But the Swiss were prepared to compromise, and cornered the market, before they found themselves overtaken by the mass-production techniques of Timex in the US.

Timex watches weren't particularly accurate, were crudely made and didn't last long. But they were dirt cheap and fulfilled a pent-up demand for inexpensive timepieces for the masses.

In the end, a chipmaker's sole objective is to make as much money out of a raw silicon wafer as possible. Customers' needs don't really come into the equation beyond a certain technical level ("I want to run Windows XP").

But there's no reason why they shouldn't, so I'll officially start the ball rolling by stating publicly that I want to be able to buy a brand new PC by the end of this year, and do not want to spend more than £100.

The keen-eyed observer will note that I'm not holding my breath.

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!