Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:42:57 02/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2003 at 12:39:34, Matt Taylor wrote: >On February 23, 2003 at 21:30:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 23, 2003 at 01:54:06, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On February 23, 2003 at 00:55:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On February 22, 2003 at 19:40:44, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 22, 2003 at 17:40:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Wouldn't argue. And I'd bet it would not fail a single time either. Until >>>>>>you push the clock beyond what the engineers set the limit at. >>>>> >>>>>Tell that to the people who ever bought a P3 1.13GHz processor. :) >>>> >>>> >>>>So? The original pentium had a horrible FP bug. That happens. Care to check >>>>the AMD errata sheets? They do it to. As did even the Crays... >>> >>>So, the Intel engineers pushed the clock beyond the limit. >> >>No they didn't. They simply made an error in computing how fast it would >>run. Just like the FP divide error where a table was copied but one entry >>was omitted... That's an error in engineering, not in trying to push the >>chip to the edge and beyond, IMHO. I'd bet they were _surprised_ when the >>failure reports came in, and they found what was causing the problem quite >>quickly, whether it was a slower gate or a longer path, or cross-coupling >>that was unexpected, how knows. Even Hsu ran into some of that after he had >>done multiple chess chips. I don't get too hyper about human errors. Meat >>does make mistakes. :) >> >>> In essence, they >>>overclocked it. You seem to think it's ok for Intel to do it, but that anyone >>>else who does it is risking catastrophic meltdown every time they turn on their >>>machine. >> >>If you think Intel produced the chips, then started cranking up the clock to >>see how fast it would go, you are mistaken. How do they know _now_ how fast >>the next generation will run??? The answers are found in electrical >>engineering. And they can be wrong. Bridges _have_ fallen. Buildings _have_ >>blown over. Planes have lost wings. Shuttles have lost tiles. And none of >>it was caused by trial and error. Just a mistake here and there. Which is a >>big difference between using the I-beam dimensions given in an engineering text >>for a building X feet tall, but building the thing X+N feet tall and hoping it >>works. That doesn't happen. > >Intel engineers know how fast a chip is going to run when they crank out the >design. About 3 years ago my Dad mentioned to me that the Pentium 4 would clock >to 5 GHz. I do not know where he heard about it, but I recently read the same >thing in the Intel roadmap -- they will be near 5 GHz by the end of this year >with the Pentium 4 core. > >I can't say anything regarding the 1.13 GHz Pentium 3 mistake, but many mistakes >in other engineering disciplines have been marketting/management mistakes rather >than engineering mistakes. > >-Matt I wouldn't disagree. But engineers do make mistakes as well. IE bridges fall, buildings fall, etc. That doesn't mean that they build a building and hope it will stand. They know it will stand if they don't make a technical mistake somewhere in the design.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.