Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 03:09:04 01/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2002 at 06:05:42, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On January 10, 2002 at 05:45:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On January 10, 2002 at 05:37:00, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On January 10, 2002 at 03:07:44, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On January 10, 2002 at 02:59:03, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 07, 2002 at 16:00:58, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 07, 2002 at 12:53:17, Rajen Gupta wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>i'm afraid that amd may lose all the goodwill they have earned so far unless >>>>>>>they get their act together real soon >>>>>> >>>>>>Funny, I've been (and still am) thinking the same of Intel >>>>>>for quite a while. >>>>>> >>>>>>The P4 is garbage from a technical point of view, and >>>>>>their current Itaniums seem to be too, based on the benchmarks >>>>>>we have seen so far. Their only hope is to keep pushing up >>>>>>the clockspeed as high as they can, but the design has limits >>>>>>*somewhere*, as the original P3 at 1.13Ghz showed (totall recall >>>>>>due to instabily). >>>>> >>>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/23593.html >>>> >>>>Please read what I wrote. I said the _original_ P3. >>> >>>Please read what you wrote. You said, "..., but the design has limits >>>*somewhere*, as the original P3 at 1.13Ghz showed..." >> >>Right. So with smaller process technology, it can go a bit higher, >>but it's still limited. > >Limited? I require proof to accept such a statement. Have you seen such proof or >are you guessing? > >I know what you are saying has been alleged in many places on the internet, but >I have yet to read an explanation (much less see a proof) of how that can be so. >It's counter-intuitive and therefore requires compelling evidence. A good indication (not proof) would be that so far all CPU's Intel produced have reached a platform above which they got unstable. That platform can be upped by smaller process technology. But you cannot keep decreasing process technology, as there is a lower limit there. (single atoms sounds like a good lower bound) -- GCP
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.