Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Introducing "No-Moore's Law"

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 20:24:16 03/02/03

Go up one level in this thread


On March 02, 2003 at 22:42:59, Jeremiah Penery wrote:

>On March 02, 2003 at 10:17:08, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On March 02, 2003 at 00:33:11, Matt Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>On March 01, 2003 at 20:10:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>So if Intel ships 3.0 today, that's what I buy.  If they ship 2.8, that is
>>>>what I buy.
>
>That's exactly the point.  Why release the 3.0, when you'll buy the slower 2.8?
>

_what_ is "the point"???  if we believe your scenario, then it costs the same
to produce _either_ so their profit is the same whether I buy a 2.8 or a 3.0.




>>>I wasn't talking so much about requirements. I was thinking more that few people
>>>will upgrade from a 2.8 GHz Xeon to a 3.06 GHz Xeon because it is
>>>cost-prohibitive and returns very little additional speed. The point is that
>>>people will buy the 3.6 if available, otherwise they buy the 2.8 (or whatever
>>>-is- available). If they buy the 2.8, they're more likely to upgrade when the
>>>4.0 is released. If they get the 3.6, there's no chance.
>>
>>I agree.  But I see _no_ incentive for Intel to want to delay _my_ purchases
>>for a few months, yet that is exactly the effect of "dragging their feet."
>
>Because you're going to purchase anyway.  It doesn't matter to them if you
>purchase today or tomorrow, so long as you purchase.

But it _does_ matter whether I purchase their processor or their competitor's.
And I'm going to buy the fastest thing I can at the time I purchase.  If they
lag with clock speeds, I may well go with someone else.  And I believe they
know that.


>
>If they skip straight to the 5GHz, they miss out on your upgrade to 4GHz.  If
>they release speed grades more slowly, you're likely to buy the 4GHz AND the
>5GHz.


Nope.  I'm going to upgrade once every 3 years.  If they are selling 5ghz, I'll
buy it.  If they lag at 4, and someone else has something faster, I'm buying
that.

I do _not_ see any reason to "hold back" on the top end.  But this is an
argument that can _never_ be ended because there is no way to prove it.  You
can believe what you want, I'll believe what I want, and that is about the
best we can hope for...



This page took 0.04 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.