Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Jeremiah Penery

Date: 19:33:57 03/03/03

Go up one level in this thread


On March 02, 2003 at 23:24:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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.

Exactly, again.  Why should they produce the 3.0 today if they make the same
profit from the 2.8?  As long as they're faster than the competitor, they don't
need to be any faster.

>>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.

_You_, and a huge amount of others, aren't going to purchase the competitor's,
and Intel knows that.  They count on it.

>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.

Funny then, that you've never had an AMD machine, since they were faster than
Intel machines for quite some time.

>>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.

The issue is that _nobody else has anything faster_.  Intel releases just enough
to be faster than the competition.

>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

It's an argument that can never be ended because you absolutely refuse to admit
that you're wrong about it.



This page took 0.05 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.