Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:11:13 03/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2003 at 01:53:11, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >Please go read this: > >http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=1022&Thread=34&roomID=11&entryID=11503 > >I'm not going to try arguing the economic points anymore. The post above may >help you understand what I may have failed to explain well. That is not exactly a place I would cite in a technical paper, any more than I would cite a post here. :) > >On March 01, 2003 at 00:07:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 28, 2003 at 20:41:59, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>Sparc isn't selling "so well". IN fact, if you talk to Sun insiders, it is >>doomed and they are moving to the PC world quickly. They already use a PC >>type chassis with IDE disks and the like. Care to guess why? Processor sucks. >>Everybody knows it sucks. Only the "sun loyalty" keeps a few coming back. We >>used to be 100% sun, for example. We now have 5 out of 250 computers here. >>The rest are mostly PCs with a few others (SGI, etc) thrown in for good measure. > >http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/030127/tech1_1.html and >http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=1181&Thread=1&roomID=11&entryID=14061 > >--- >"In 2002, Sun was No. 1 in sales of non-Intel servers. >It had 37% of all non-Intel server revenue, according >to researcher International Data Corp. So? 37% of 5% is what? PCs dominate the computer market, reaching near 95% of all computers. So Sun is fighting to compete for some fraction of 5%? And they are going down the hole. Sparc is doomed, and sun has already said this. They will be X86-based within two years... although it might be Intel or AMD of course... > >Hewlett-Packard was No. 2, with 31% of those sales. >IBM Corp. came in No. 3 with 21%. And Fujitsu was No. >4, with just 2.6%" > >So by revenue, RISC server market share breakdown is >approximately: > >40% SPARC >31% PA-RISC + Alpha >21% Power/PowerPC > >The 31% HP share is likely about two thirds PA-RISC >and one third Alpha. SGI probably takes a good chunk >of the 8% unaccounted for. But that entire segment is 5% or less of the total sales. Probably less as mainframes are in that 5% category as well... >--- > >>The alpha was too expensive for the desktop. 256 bit bus was a killer. But > >http://news.com.com/2100-1001-278032.html?tag=rn > >They planned to release it for the desktop. It wasn't all that expensive, >either. With FX!32, they could even run native Intel binaries, so software >compatibility shouldn't have been a barrier. There were some cheapo versions released. Polywell was one example. But it was a dog because it used the PC 64 bit bus so it could use the PC memory and PCI cards. And it was a flop. > >>that is _all_ that was wrong with it and give things another 3-5 years and >>64 bit chips _will_ be the norm. > >What does this statement have anything to do with the discussion? Of course, I >agree with this, especially because of Hammer's imminent release. > >>>_You_ were the one who said it first, not me. "But reducing the die size has >>>other advantages, including lower voltage and lower heat, at the same clock >>>frequency, so there is a reason for going there.." I just tried to respond to >>>it. >> >>What's wrong with that statement? > >Nothing's wrong with that statement, except that it wasn't the subject of the >discussion. You made the point, I replied to it, and now you say _I'm_ the one >getting off-topic? Sheesh. > >> There is _no_ reason to go to reduced die >>size except to (a) shorten distances, (b) shorten switching times, (c) reduce >>power requirements, and (d) reduce heat dissipation. You can go to a smaller >>fab without going faster, if your only goal is reduced heat, for example. But >>we _were_ talking about speed, and nothing else. > >So why did _YOU_ bring up the heat/power argument? I didn't. I responded to it. > >>>The biggest potential number for headroom I may have given was 25%. That may be >>>a bit high, but not implausibly so. >> >>And if that is all you are saying, then why are you arguing, because I haven't >>said anything different. which leads me to wonder who is _really_ skimming. :) > >I'm arguing it because you keep claiming I said something else. > >>>So what are you harping on about here? _Nobody_ ever claimed that they build >>>first and then test. Nobody disputed that the engineers should have a good idea >>>of the maximum clock speed. All I've said is that they may be able to produce >>>something, but that doesn't mean they will sell it. >> >>I'm only "harping" on how engineering works. It is _not_ as haphazard as you >>and others would suggest. The engineers know very well what a particular fab > >Please give me one example of someone saying anything remotely implying >something like, "engineering is haphazard." Just read thru this thread. The discussion about "max speed". I claim they know before the first chip rolls off the fab. Others claim that they don't know until they test. > >>process and design will do. It might take a while to get there, but there is >>no guesswork at all... >> >>ANd that is what I have been saying over and over. Steve agreed. As did any >>other engineer I have talked to over the years... > >You act like engineers determine everything about product releases, though. >Unfortunately for the rest of the world, this isn't how it works. Marketing >determines far more than they probably should. > >>>You've already bought the program that's 200 points better than the competitors. >>> The question is, "When do you 'need' to buy a replacement program?" If you >>>already have something twice as good as any competing product, it's very likely >>>that your buying cycle time will dramatically increase. >> >>Not if they come out next year with something 200 points better. > >If you suddenly came across an idea that improved the strength of Crafty by 300 >SSDF points overnight, what makes you think you could repeat the improvement >next year, or ever? > >>Will I buy a 3ghz machine today and buy a 3.2ghz machine in 6 months? No. >> >>But the risk is will I buy that 3.0ghz if your competition is right behind >>you in speed and significantly below you in cost (AMD vs Intel for example). > >It seems to work for Intel so far, in that they still have almost 90% of the >market. > >>>The better off you are _today_. If companies focused only on today, they would >>>fail tomorrow. In your business model, the companies sacrifice long term sales >>>and revenue for a quick injection of cash. That won't sustain anyone. >> >>I still don't see how this is an issue. How will producing a slower product >>today help me tomorrow? Once I lose a customer to a competitor, it is _much_ >>harder to get them _back_. I'd want to offer the best that I could offer, to >>drain _their_ customers that need more performance. >> >>IE Cray _never_ played these games, _ever_. > >If we were talking about the high-performance, server-oriented RISC market, or >supercomputer market, your comments about marketing may well be correct. We're >talking about the commodity x86 market, however, which is completely different. > I believe it is different _only_ in the volume of sales.. >>>If he's designing a several-million square foot, 100 story office tower, >>>compared to the architect 30 years ago designing a 1500 square foot, 2 story >>>house, the job is certainly NOT easier for the human today, no matter what tools >>>he has. >> >>But he isn't. He is designing a small city, made up of one of these, one of >>those, two of those, etc. Divide and conquer and all that. It isn't just one >>person... > >That doesn't make it any easier for the individuals. They not only have to >design their own building now, they have to make sure it integrates well with >all the other buildings. > >>>That doesn't mean the silicon isn't capable of running at the same speed as the >>>desktop part. That's the crux of this entire argument. >> >>No it isn't. The crux of the argument is "can the desktop processor, with the >>full setup for heatsink and fan and power supply and so forth run faster than >>the engineers say?" > >Define 'full setup for heatsink and fan and ...' I would guess that desktop >parts are probably often thermally limited, rather than silicon limited. >They're released at certain speed grades taking into account near worst-case >thermal conditions. With better cooling, they can be run closer to the limit of >the silicon, rather than simply what the thermal characteristics allow with >mediocre cooling. > >>The answer seems to be "no" according to popular (engineering) opinion. > >You've heard from a couple engineering friends of yours, and asked one guy on >this forum who gave a somewhat non-commital response. Hardly an overwhelming >opinion, considering there are opposing viewpoints from people also in >engineering and chip design and marketing. > >>Once again, I do not _care_ about the intentionally slowed down processors >>and whether they will overclock or not. I care about the front-line fastest >>chips being produced _only_. All my comments are addressed to that specific >>segment of the chip market. Not the low-head (mobile) processors. Not the > >You were the one who brought up the laptop processors. I only tried to respond >to the point. Once again I did _not_ bring up the laptop processors. I responded to something about "heat dissipation". I've _never_ worried about low-end or mid-range chips. Only top-end. > >>re-marked slower-clocked processors made for an economy niche. The best of >>the processors _only_ is what I have been talking about, and I have _not_ >>been vague in that position whatsoever... > >Except that you brought up things like laptop processors, Cray, chess programs, >house building, etc. All I've done is try to respond to your points in kind. > >>All attempts to change the chip topic will be returned to the main idea, >>time after time. :) > >Then maybe you should stop changing the topic, so I don't keep sounding >off-topic to you. :P
This page took 0.01 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.