Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 21:24:27 03/03/03

Go up one level in this thread

On March 03, 2003 at 22:33:57, Jeremiah Penery wrote:

>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.

I suppose it is time to give up, but one more time.  If vendor A produces a
processor at 2.5, and vendor B produces a processor at 2.55, I will buy the 2.55
processor, but only if it is close to the 2.5 in cost.  If Vendor B offers me
a 3.0, I will not only buy it, but I will pay _more_ because it is significantly
faster than the competition.  The wider the gap, the more I will pay.

I'm not sure why _that_ is hard to understand...

You can sell 2.55 at X dollars today, and in 6 months you can sell 3.0 at X
dollars since your competition is now at 2.95.  Or you can sell 3.0 today and
with the wider performance gap, you can widen the price.

Simple economics, IMHO.

>>>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.

False assumption.  If AMD's 64 bit processor runs as expected, I'll certainly
have at least one to see how it does.  And if it lives up to promises, I'll buy
more.  But until they widen the gap enough to get me to switch, I stay with
what has been working.

>>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.

As I mentioned, we _had_ a few K5 processors.  They left a _terrible_ taste.
I helped a Ph.D. student debug for a couple of weeks, only to find it was an
unreliable AMD processor.  Ran fine on equivalent Intel chips.  Not on K5.
We later find that that batch of K5's had some problems.

I haven't had that happen with Intel, even though I am aware of the original
P5 divide (FP) error.

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

If you believe Intel is that much better than AMD in terms of design and
fab, they why bother buying AMD as they _must_ be grossly incompetent to be
unable to keep up in speed?

I don't buy that myself...

>>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.

Or vice versa?  pot, kettle?

You offer _zero_ evidence.  Engineers say they push as hard as they can.
You say they don't.  So why would I admit I am wrong when you offer _nothing_
to _prove_ that I am???

I can't find an engineer to support your theory.  Because it makes no sense from
any angle.  You might try asking a couple to see if you get different answers
from what I got.

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.