Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Jeremiah Penery

Date: 18:55:55 03/04/03

Go up one level in this thread

On March 04, 2003 at 11:23:17, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On March 03, 2003 at 22:05:39, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>On March 02, 2003 at 23:43:41, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>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_
>grocery operations together?

KMart, Target, Meijer, to name 3 off the top of my head.

>>>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,
>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?

So tell me precicely how many cycles AMD processors have to execute each x86
instruction, how much cache they must have, how many transistors they should
use, and the core voltage they must use in order to be "compatible" by your

>It's (again) _not_ the same thing and to claim it is is pretty funny.
>Har-de-har-har again...

You're making absurd comparisons.

>>>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..

If you made patented advances in Crafty, which required licenses for the
opponents to use, your window would be eternity if you wanted it to be.  That's
the situation Intel is in.

>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.

AMD _can't_ implement SSE (or whatever) unless Intel licenses it to them.  If it
was that big of a deal, Intel wouldn't license it at all.

>>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???

If you have software that depends on that feature, which worked on EVERY x86
processor EVER, you'd call the P4 buggy.  P4 claims to be completely backward
compatible (You even claimed earlier it was compatible with the old 4004), but
it is demonstrably not in this instance.  You demonize AMD for claiming
compatibility with the K6, and use buggy software as a demonstration that the
claim is untrue.  But when the P4 is not even backward compatible (which is FAR
more important) it's somehow ok?

>>>>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
>beat them by a few months, oh well.  But they weren't _copying_ anything as
>was nothing to copy.

The DeHavilland Comet came out years before the 707.  Those other jet airliners
I mentioned were also years before the 707.

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

If that were so, WalMart brand tissues would outsell Kleenex, but I doubt they
do.  It's about brand name.  You would buy Intel anyway, and so would a whole
lot of other people, just because they're Intel.

>>>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
>_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.

They were once follower who became market leader - the thing you said was
impossible.  That's the point of this statement.  I wasn't saying anything about

This page took 0.09 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.