Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/ [...] /index.php

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124308105.322979.179460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/ [...] /index.php
>

I can see why they called it "smithfield" kinda sounds like "smutfield "

Wieeeeeeee very interesting read though... I am just half way wow

Bye,
Skybuck

(Me looks forward to next intel processor wieeeeeee)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:

> http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/ [...] /index.php

I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine months
in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

keith skrev:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:
>
> > http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/ [...] /index.php
>
> I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
> technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine months
> in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
> already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
> multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!

The only amazing thing here is that you don't seem to understand the
article and appear to know nothing about microprocessor development.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

icerq4a@spray.se wrote:
> The only amazing thing here is that you don't seem to understand the
> article and appear to know nothing about microprocessor development.

Now you've done it. I don't envy your position one bit. :-)

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

I wonder if that Intel engineer was looking for a new job?

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

YKhan wrote:

> I wonder if that Intel engineer was looking for a new job?
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
.... or is now.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

icerq4a@spray.se wrote:
> keith skrev:
>
>
>>On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php
>>
>>I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
>>technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine months
>>in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
>>already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
>>multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!
>
>
> The only amazing thing here is that you don't seem to understand the
> article and appear to know nothing about microprocessor development.
>

Better put on your flame retardant suit.

You, as a newbie to this group with no credentials established
are telling Keith, with well established creds, that he knows
nothing about microprocessor development ?

Better stand under a stream of ice cold waterfall too.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.08.18.02.39.49.891069@att.bizzzz...
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:
>
>> http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/ [...] /index.php
>
> I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
> technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine
> months
> in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
> already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
> multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!
>
> --
> Keith

When the PHB only gives you 9 months, you do what you gotta do. And
since this is a desktop thing you do something as much like a dual
processor desktop box as you can. It's a Kluge but it's a Kluge they
needed. He'll get a medal.

del

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:
> When the PHB only gives you 9 months, you do what you gotta do. And
> since this is a desktop thing you do something as much like a dual
> processor desktop box as you can. It's a Kluge but it's a Kluge they
> needed. He'll get a medal.

I bet the management is just now thinking, "yeah, he got our bacon out
of the fire and all with this kludge, but just wish we could train these
engineers to lie occasionally."

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in news:tdbNe.12965$7R.776216
@news20.bellglobal.com:

> Del Cecchi wrote:
>> When the PHB only gives you 9 months, you do what you gotta do. And
>> since this is a desktop thing you do something as much like a dual
>> processor desktop box as you can. It's a Kluge but it's a Kluge they
>> needed. He'll get a medal.
>
> I bet the management is just now thinking, "yeah, he got our bacon out
> of the fire and all with this kludge, but just wish we could train these
> engineers to lie occasionally."
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

:> Reminds me of something Cringly wrote in Accidental Empires. Something
about why engineers just can't lie. He had a pretty good chapter or two on
this whole subject, how engineers would get all ticked off at management,
and then go tell the public. I can't remeber it exactly... I need to stop
lending my books out as I never get them back.

-grant

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

Grant Schoep wrote:

> Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in news:tdbNe.12965$7R.776216
> @news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>>Del Cecchi wrote:
>>
>>>When the PHB only gives you 9 months, you do what you gotta do. And
>>>since this is a desktop thing you do something as much like a dual
>>>processor desktop box as you can. It's a Kluge but it's a Kluge they
>>>needed. He'll get a medal.

I agree, this might have been a hack but it's an amazing hack.
>>
>>I bet the management is just now thinking, "yeah, he got our bacon out
>>of the fire and all with this kludge, but just wish we could train these
>>engineers to lie occasionally."
>>
> :> Reminds me of something Cringly wrote in Accidental Empires. Something
> about why engineers just can't lie. He had a pretty good chapter or two on
> this whole subject, how engineers would get all ticked off at management,
> and then go tell the public. I can't remeber it exactly... I need to stop
> lending my books out as I never get them back.

There are several reasons why engineers are very poor at lying:

-) "I'm an engineer, my credibility is my main capital."

-) "Salesmen, layers, PHBs and several other types that I really don't
like do it, so I want to distance myself from them."

-) It is just so inelegant. :-(

If I absolutely _have_ to lie, it must be by omission: I'll still tell
the truth and nothing but the truth (as I understand it, of course), but
unless you ask me specific questions about those parts I'm skipping, I
might not tell you all of the truth.

Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen@hda.hydro.com>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

YKhan schrieb:
> I wonder if that Intel engineer was looking for a new job?
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
I'd assume Jonathan presented with full blessing of Intels management.
Playing down Smithfields architecture, blaming the bus for performance
and power issues is actually not a bad idea to prepare the soil for
Paxville, no? While I doubt anybody of the auditorium in Palo Alto was
overly impressed by it, a self-critical Hotchips-presentation by Intel
guarantees press coverage without much probability of looking through an
even paper-thin line of arguments.

KF

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> wrote:
> There are several reasons why engineers are very poor at lying:

> -) "I'm an engineer, my credibility is my main capital."

> -) "Salesmen, la[w]yers, PHBs and several other types that I really
> don't like do it, so I want to distance myself from them."

> -) It is just so inelegant. :-(

> If I absolutely _have_ to lie, it must be by omission: I'll
> still tell the truth and nothing but the truth (as I understand
> it, of course), but unless you ask me specific questions about
> those parts I'm skipping, I might not tell you all of the truth.

So how do you answer when your wife asks: "Does this dress make
me look fat?"

The concept of a "duty of truth" is a practical justification.
One really should not lie (even by omission) when one owes information
to someone, and they may be reasonably expected to rely upon it.

For example, I have no trouble lying to a saleman saying "I'm busy"
rather than telling him "Your product is grossly overpriced,
I'm insulted you think I'm so stupid as to fall for it, and I
find you obnoxious." The latter may be entirely true, but it is
valuable information (feedback) the saleman has not earned.

A certain amount of lying also eases social interactions.
See the Jim Carrey movie "Liar, liar". Of course, you may
claim that engineers are poor at social interactions

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)

keith wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php
>
>
> I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
> technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine months
> in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
> already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
> multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!
>
If these cores are the desktop versions rather than Xeon, they were not
planned to be used in SMP, much less in dual core. I'd be interested to
get your spin on why they *would* test the desktop chip SMP.

Here's a more interesting question: Intel built the D/C chips on P4
rather than P-M, presumably so they could offer the ht model at a huge
premium. Given the low power and far better performance of the P-M in
terms of work/watt and work/clock, why not a dual core Pentium-M? Then
when the better P4 D/C chip is ready they could offer that?

Just curious as to the logic for the decision if anyone has any insight.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com