Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The 14th generation Raptor Lake Refresh is the last processor family to use the old "Core i" branding scheme in use since 2008. The Raptor Lake-U Refresh series is the first processor family to use the new "Core 3/5/7" branding scheme introduced in mid 2023.
The Intel case originated from Advanced Micro Devices' antitrust claims against Intel in Europe. AMD filed a complaint against Intel in the European Union's antitrust enforcement agency (the Directorate-General for Competition), and then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. for discovery of certain Intel documents in order to further their complaint.
In any case, these products failed to meet their companies' expectations needed to be considered successful, typically due to them failing on average to break even, resulting in the companies losing money. [1] These high-profile items tend to appear on computer- and hardware-related "worst" lists or lists of failures (e.g., "tech fails").
Beyond the federal legislation, Ohio is providing Intel with more than $2 billion in aid, and New Albany is giving the company a property tax abatement on the site.
Intel was one of the worst-performing stocks in the market in 2024. Even after Friday's 9% jump, its stock is down 54% in the past year. Going back further, the company's stock is down 69% since a ...
An iterative refresh of Raptor Lake-S desktop processors, called the 14th generation of Intel Core, was launched on October 17, 2023. [1] [2] CPUs in bold below feature ECC memory support when paired with a motherboard based on the W680 chipset according to each respective Intel Ark product page.
The tests conducted by Broadcom involved sending silicon wafers - the foot-wide discs on which chips are printed - through Intel's most advanced manufacturing process known as 18A, the sources said.
Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003), is a decision of the California Supreme Court, authored by Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar.In Hamidi the California Supreme Court held that a former Intel Corporation employee's e-mails to current Intel employees, despite requests by Intel to stop sending messages, did not constitute trespass of Intel's e-mail system.