Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 08:23:17 03/04/03

Go up one level in this thread


On March 03, 2003 at 22:05:39, Jeremiah Penery wrote:

>On March 02, 2003 at 23:43:41, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On March 02, 2003 at 22:18:35, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>
>>>On March 02, 2003 at 10:34:23, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On March 02, 2003 at 02:02:39, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On March 01, 2003 at 20:23:24, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I consider Intel a "name brand".  I consider AMD a "copier".  Nothing wrong with
>>>>>>being a "copier" but it also means you are a "follower".  And 2nd place is all
>>>>>>that a follower can _ever_ reach...
>>>>>
>>>>>Matt already said most of what I wanted to say, so I will just give some
>>>>>examples of 'follower' companies that eclipsed (or at least achieved parity)
>>>>>with their 'leaders':
>>>>>
>>>>>AOL, Dell, Boeing, International Paper, Exxon-Mobil, Wal-Mart, Visa, Federal
>>>>>Express, FOX (television network)...  The list can go on.
>>>>
>>>>Not the same thing.  _no_ "innovation_.
>>>
>>>No innovation where?  AMD?  That's so laughable, I don't know where to begin.
>>
>>Begin by learning to read and comprehend.
>
>Perhaps you should learn to write.
>
>Sorry, I'm not a mind reader.  I can't divine information from a two word
>sentence given absolutely zero context.

I am not quite sure what your problem is, but _you_ provided the context.  You
gave a
list of companies as examples of companies that "followed" like AMD.

I responded:

"not the same thing".  So there it is clear that I didn't consider _any_ of your
examples to
be comparable to AMD, since AMD was the context of your comment.  I then said
"_no_
innovation."

If you want to say "I can't write" that's fine.  I think that the "context" is
clear because _you_
established.  If you simply want to argue, that's ok although I'm not going to
play.  But if you
_really_ look at the above, and you _really_ mean to say "I'm not a mind reader"
then you
aren't being honest.  Because the mind you need to read is _yours_.  You wrote
the statement
I responded to.

>
>>  In your list above, did you mention
>>AMD?  Then why would you think my comment was about AMD?
>
>Because the entire discussion was about AMD...  Perhaps you noticed my question
>mark?  But saying any of those other companies haven't been highly innovative is
>also laughable.



And you give some bogus examples and I say "not the same" and that applies to
AMD?

:)

Please...



>
>>It was about (for example) Wal-Mart.  They are _not_ copying another operation.
>
>No?  There weren't other large-scale discount retailers before them?  I can name
>more than a few.  Even if they didn't copy someone, how does it say they exhibit
>'no innovation'?

What _technology_ are they copying?  Do they have to look _exactly_ like another
store in order to sell?  What _other_ stores have both normal merchandise _and_
large
grocery operations together?

As I said, they are _not_ the same.  Wal-Mart doesn't have to have light bulbs
on Aisle 1,
row 2, near the top, arranged in descending order from high-wattage to low,
clear first
and frosted last, floods in the middle.

AMD _does_ have to follow an absolutely specific set of requirements...

So your analogy simply seems _meaningless_ to me...

Apples and oranges.






>
>>They are a retail seller.  What did Boeing copy?  The 707?  First commercial
>>jet airliner?  Visa?  None of those are "innovation-heavy" things.  They are
>>simply businesses.
>
>Which ones aren't innovation-heavy?  To claim that any company who has emerged
>to market _dominance_, in ANY field, hasn't innovated a great deal is, again,
>laughable.

Har-de-har-har.  There.  I laughed.  Happy?  Now tell me what precise
specifications Wal-Mart
has to follow in order to compete with another store?   Precisely how fast they
have to serve
a customer.  How many square feet for this department, how many for that?

It's (again) _not_ the same thing and to claim it is is pretty funny.

Har-de-har-har again...






>
>>Intel _defines_ the X86 architecture, because they _are_ the X86
>>architects.  Anybody making compatibles (AMD) is _following_.  Which means
>
>They invented it, but that doesn't mean much anymore.  They continue to be able
>to define it only because they sell more processors.  X86-64 is making a big
>break with this, and it has a ton of industry support.


Doesn't matter.  _they_ define it.

Whether X86-64 will succeed or not will become apparent within 2 years.  But we
are talking about IA32.  Not 64 bit at the present.

>
>>they will always be "behind".  Because Intel will change the specs, and start
>>shipping chips, and AMD has to quickly catch up.  That's just the way it is
>>when you are copying your competition's product exactly...
>
>Intel isn't forced to license the instructions (SSE, SSE2, etc.) to AMD.  If
>they really thought that supporting some instructions that AMD doesn't support
>would be crushing, they wouldn't license the instructions.
>


You need some business experience.  The issue is _timing_.  I can safely deliver
a version
of Crafty today that has something nobody has seen before.  If it makes it
better, I can sell
many versions before everybody else figure it out and "catch up".  The "window
of opportunity"
is what this is about, not monopolistic practices..

When Intel announces something "new" they have a window that stretches for
however long it
takes the opposition to implement the changes.  Or if they choose not to, they
can choose to
make those "changes" a big deal in advertising which will hurt the competition.
So the
followers have to follow for the most part.





>Here's something funny.  The x86 ISA requires that when an FPU exception occurs,
>a certain instruction can read what instruction caused it, and where it
>happened.  Pentium4 can't do this.  So can we call the P4 incompatible with x86?
>:)


Doesn't matter.  PIV is compatible with PIV.  It is the "leader".  It doesn't
matter what they
do, what matters is can the followers do it too so that they can sell???





>
>>For example, automobiles are different.  Because one vendor doesn't set the
>>specification _precisely_ and then everyone else has to match _exactly_.
>
>Cars all have to have certain parts - engines, tires, etc.  x86 processors all
>have to support certain instructions - ADD, MOV, etc.  That's all.


Not by a _long_ shot.  Just pull out the system programmer's book from Intel and
study
 the internals of the X86 as it applies to O/S specific issues.  There is a
_huge_ volume
of stuff that has to be followed exactly.  And it has changed from chip version
to chip
version...




>
>The instructions a processor executes don't define the processor.  Otherwise,
>there wouldn't be such radically different designs as the P4 and the Crusoe,
>among others, both executing the same instructions.

As I said, you are looking at the surface.  I'm looking deeper.  Just find the
reference
PDF I mentioned at Intel and download it.




>
>>>Several companies had commercial aircraft before Boeing.
>>
>>Who made the first commercial jet airliner?  'nuff said.
>
>De Havilland, not Boeing.

Eh?  First commercial/military jet I saw, as I grew up, was the 707.  If someone
beat them by a few months, oh well.  But they weren't _copying_ anything as
there
was nothing to copy.





>
>>If there were analogous cases to Intel/AMD, I'd buy it.  But name _one_
>>field where one company gets to design the specifications, change them when
>>they want, and that must be followed _exactly_ by the competition.  Where
>
>But it's not true that AMD has to follow _exactly_.  When they do, it usually
>comes at a leisurely pace.  It's not like they're forced to introduce new
>instructions sets within a week of Intel, or lose market share because of it.


Right.  Don't you think if they were _exact_ clones, just cheaper, they would be
selling
_more_?







>
>>>>Dell is hardly a "follower".  They jumped into the PC manufacturing world,
>>>>but they've done plenty of innovation, from custom machines/motherboards/
>>>>etc to customer support.
>>>
>>>But they were still PCs, compatible with several other companies' PCs.  If you
>>>claim AMD is a follower because they release a product compatible with another
>>>companies product, Dell becomes a follower by your definition.
>>
>>
>>But nobody gets to say "A PC must look exactly like this" and force Dell to
>>build _exactly_ that.
>
>You might be surprised at what Dell would do for a very large customer.  I work
>at HP, and I see the stuff they do for customers every day.  I would have never
>believed it before seeing it.
>

That's hardly the same thing.  We've gotten some pretty cute cluster stuff from
Dell on
special order.  But that doesn't force another vendor to build exactly that...






>>  There are a few "givens" that all manufacturers have
>>to deal with.  But only a few.  Processor = X86 or compatible.  Some form of
>>off-the-shelf FAM.  One of dozens of disk drives and drive interfaces.  Ditto
>>for CD/DVD/etc.
>
>And for x86 processors, the only "givens" are the x86 instructions.  Intel
>doesn't get to tell AMD what its processors will look like, or how it executes
>those instructions, or how much cache it will use, or anything else.
>


No, but if a program runs on a current X86 and fails on a current AMD, then AMD
has
a problem.  That was my _only_ point.  It happened with the K6 and CMOV for me.
I
didn't compile the program.  I remember the "announcement" that it requires a
PII or
better.  And it wasn't long before the debugging started.  And the first few
reports didn't
even mention "AMD" as they thought AMD and Intel were _identical_.  They
weren't.





>>>>But _none_ of those vendors build a product that their competition is forced to
>>>>copy exclusively.  As Intel is doing.  They were at the right place, at the
>>>>right time (yes, I would have preferred that Motorola had been the PC processor
>>>>of choice as it is a better ISA) and they now define the PC architecture.
>>>
>>>AMD does not exactly copy Intel processors, anymore than Boeing copied the DC-10
>>>when they built the first 707.
>>
>>It is good that they didn't since the 707 was 20 years prior to the DC-10,
>>maybe more like 30.  :)
>
>Well, 15 years, but it's enough.
>
>De Havilland Comet was the first commercial jet airliner, before the Boeing 707.
> Tupolev and Air France also had jet airliners before the 707.  My point still
>stands.
>
>>I said AMD _is_ following Intel.  And that is _clearly_ true.  Anyone that
>>argues that point _is_ ignorant of important technical details.
>
>It has much more to do with marketing details, rather than technical ones.
>
>They're still not following Intel any more than Dell followed
>Compaq/HP/IBM/etc., or any number of other companies that once followed their
>market leader.


Absolutely wrong.  What processor does Dell use?  They are following
Compaq/HP/IBM
_exactly_ in that a program that runs on a compaq will run on a dell with _zero_
changes of
any kind.  And that is the point of all this.

And no, before you mention it, I am _not_ talking about HP/PA nor Compaq/alpha,
etc...



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.