Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 20:09:14 03/04/03

Go up one level in this thread


On March 04, 2003 at 22:06:53, Jeremiah Penery wrote:

>On March 04, 2003 at 00:24:27, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On March 03, 2003 at 22:33:57, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>
>>>On March 02, 2003 at 23:24:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>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 never claimed anything about the K5.  K5, by all accounts, pretty well sucked
>anyway.  I'm talking about the last couple years, where Athlon was clearly
>dominating performance numbers everywhere.


Fool me once, shame on you.  fool me twice, shame on _me_.  Sound
familiar?  That is a problem for AMD, IMHO.

>
>>>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?
>
>If you have 100x less cash than a competitor, and R&D, engineering, and
>marketing budgets several times smaller as well, would you expect to remain
>anywhere in the same league as that competitor?
>
>Maybe Intel is the one who is grossly incompetent, because they can't blow the
>competition away in performance.  Or maybe the simpler explanation, that it's
>all about marketing, is the correct one.
>
>>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.
>
>Again, engineers don't control marketing.  Engineers don't have anything to do
>with marketing.  Marketing people often have no clue about engineering.  Just
>read a few Dilbert comics, and you'll see satire which is often remarkably close
>to the truth regarding marketing.
>
>You're trying to use engineering as explanation for marketing.  That will fail
>100% of the time, especially when dealing with a huge marketing machine like
>Intel.


Using marketing in place of engineering also fails.  Remember that bigwigs at
Intel _are_ engineers.



This page took 0.01 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.