Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:30:46 02/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. > >In case you couldn't tell, I'm intentionally using hyperbole. I hope you get >the point.
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.