Author: Jesper Antonsson
Date: 22:56:26 12/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2002 at 19:55:47, Matt Taylor wrote: >On December 16, 2002 at 18:35:21, Jesper Antonsson wrote: > >>On December 16, 2002 at 18:18:19, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >> >>>On December 16, 2002 at 17:42:08, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >>> >>>>On December 16, 2002 at 07:48:59, Sally Weltrop wrote: >>>>>On December 16, 2002 at 04:52:40, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>Intel could produce a microprocessor capable of 10 Ghz very soon, but they >>>>>>simply won't because they have to profit gradually from 3Ghz to 4 Ghz to 5Ghz >>>>>>etc... Simply the Murphy LAW is a profitable marketing strategy that has worked >>>>>>gradually, if they make the mistake of producing a microprocessor capable of 10 >>>>>>Ghz in the next 6 months they will lose a lot of money, by NOT squeezing our >>>>>>pockets every six months as they have done for the last 20 years. >>>>> >>>>>excellent point. >>>> >>>>Sorry, no, it's far from excellent, actually the reasoning is invalid. Intel has >>>>competition, and that means that if they could churn out faster processors (at >>>>reasonable costs) but doesn't, AMD or someone else would do it and take over >>>>Intels market shares and profits. >>>> >>>>/Jesper >>> >>>Right, if Intel and AMD don't make an agreement to go for the smaller steps to >>>make more profit together. This would be against law. Great law! ;) >>> >>>Alessandro >> >>Yes. :-) And also, for such a conspiracy not to be obvious (and get police >>attention), IBM, Compaq, Sun etc has to be in on it too, because it would look >>peculiar if PowerPCs, StrongARMs, Alphas and SPARCs suddenly turned up at 10 >>GHz, but the same didn't happen on the x86 market. >> >>/Jesper > >No it wouldn't. Yes it would. >MHz is only relevant within a design. There exist 10 GHz >processors right now. Any of them one of the processors I mentioned? Otherwise your point is moot. >Also, consider Itanium which runs around 800 MHz. Seems >slow? It outperforms a Pentium 4 3.06 GHz. IBM has a 125 MHz processor which >will outperform ~1 GHz x86 chips. AthlonXP 2700 runs at 2.17 GHz and is roughly >as fast as a Pentium 4 2.8 GHz. Yes. > >Whether or not AMD and Intel have a private agreement is speculation; however, I >find it more than curious that they release new chips at the same time. That kind of adaptions I don't find curious at all. >Also >interesting is that the P4 3.06 GHz is the same silicon that my roommate has >inside his Pentium 4 1.8 GHz chip. No, it's not the same. It may seem the same and have the same function, and even have the same design, but most likely, the 3 GHz chip is produced with better quality (purity, exactness and so on). >Bottom line: Intel was able run 3 GHz last year, but they've waited a year to >release it to the general public. There's something to speculate about. They weren't able to run at 3 GHz reliably and in quantity last year. The fine-tune production processes until the yield and quality goes up. Last year they couldn't have churned out a lot of 3 GHz processors. /Jesper
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.