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

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/76418/ [...] rtage.html

<quote>

However, another consideration for Intel is the dynamic in the market
among chipset vendors. To counter Intel's 'platformization' strategy,
which integrates processors, chipsets and network chips into one
platform, motherboard makers hinted that AMD plans to introduce a
program called the 'Commercial Stable Image Platform (CSIP) to the
enterprise PC segment in September. Since AMD does not produce
chipsets, it needs the full support of chipset vendors, including VIA
Technologies, SiS, ULi, ATI Technologies and Nvidia, to expand its CPU
market share worldwide.

By exiting the entry level segment Intel is reducing itself as a threat
to Taiwan chipset makers, and providing them more opportunities to
expand their market presence on the Intel platform. To prevent AMD from
gaining more share, Intel is opening the door for chipset vendors to
increase their chipset production, as well as their market focus, on
the Pentium 4 platform.

</quote>

Once a predator, always a predator, I guess. Everything adds up to
100%, and what Intel gets, AMD doesn't get. Isn't there an agency,
perhaps outside the US, to deal with this sort of thing?

RM

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

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124491626.761699.199710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/76418/ [...] rtage.html
>
> Once a predator, always a predator, I guess. Everything adds up to
> 100%, and what Intel gets, AMD doesn't get. Isn't there an agency,
> perhaps outside the US, to deal with this sort of thing?

On what planet and in what universe is this purported "behaviour",
even if accurate, require an "agency" to deal with it? What smallest
smidgen of this "behaviour" is by whatever torturous reasoning illegal
or immoral or unethical? I really want to know the answer to this,
Robert.

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

"Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote in message
news:AqvNe.9311$RS.956@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124491626.761699.199710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/76418/ [...] rtage.html
>>
>> Once a predator, always a predator, I guess. Everything adds up to
>> 100%, and what Intel gets, AMD doesn't get. Isn't there an agency,
>> perhaps outside the US, to deal with this sort of thing?
>
> On what planet and in what universe is this purported "behaviour",
> even if accurate, require an "agency" to deal with it? What smallest
> smidgen of this "behaviour" is by whatever torturous reasoning illegal
> or immoral or unethical? I really want to know the answer to this,
> Robert.

I believe mr myers was being sarcastic and did not mean to be taken
seriously.

del
>
>

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

Del Cecchi wrote:
> "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote in message
> news:AqvNe.9311$RS.956@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1124491626.761699.199710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> > http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/76418/ [...] rtage.html
> >>
> >> Once a predator, always a predator, I guess. Everything adds up to
> >> 100%, and what Intel gets, AMD doesn't get. Isn't there an agency,
> >> perhaps outside the US, to deal with this sort of thing?
> >
> > On what planet and in what universe is this purported "behaviour",
> > even if accurate, require an "agency" to deal with it? What smallest
> > smidgen of this "behaviour" is by whatever torturous reasoning illegal
> > or immoral or unethical? I really want to know the answer to this,
> > Robert.
>
> I believe mr myers was being sarcastic and did not mean to be taken
> seriously.
>

No, I did not mean to be taken seriously.

As to the morality of the behavior, if the strategy is accurately
described, I don't see it as any less predatory than what are claimed
to be Intel's pricing strategies. The pricing strategies are claimed
to be intended to deny AMD markets, and the claimed strategy of
choosing what to produce is intended to deny AMD collaborators.

If the analysis is accurate, it is an example of Intel using its market
dominance to make it more difficult for a competitor to do business.

And my sarasm about having an agency to regulate the behavior was aimed
at illustrating the futility of having agencies to enforce fair play.

RM

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

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 01:10:56 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net>
wrote:

>"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1124491626.761699.199710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/76418/analysis-whats-behind-the-chipset-shortage.html
>>
>> Once a predator, always a predator, I guess. Everything adds up to
>> 100%, and what Intel gets, AMD doesn't get. Isn't there an agency,
>> perhaps outside the US, to deal with this sort of thing?
>
>On what planet and in what universe is this purported "behaviour",
>even if accurate, require an "agency" to deal with it? What smallest
>smidgen of this "behaviour" is by whatever torturous reasoning illegal
>or immoral or unethical? I really want to know the answer to this,
>Robert.

It's just another iTurd Felger. He can't take the heat but he can't resist
either.... sad really.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 01:10:56 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1124491626.761699.199710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/76418/analysis-whats-behind-the-chipset-shortage.html
> >>
> >> Once a predator, always a predator, I guess. Everything adds up to
> >> 100%, and what Intel gets, AMD doesn't get. Isn't there an agency,
> >> perhaps outside the US, to deal with this sort of thing?
> >
> >On what planet and in what universe is this purported "behaviour",
> >even if accurate, require an "agency" to deal with it? What smallest
> >smidgen of this "behaviour" is by whatever torturous reasoning illegal
> >or immoral or unethical? I really want to know the answer to this,
> >Robert.
>
> It's just another iTurd Felger. He can't take the heat but he can't resist
> either.... sad really.
>

It probably did reflect bad judgment on my part to make that post.
Just among other things, I'm at a point in my life where I really don't
want to have conversations that include bathroom jokes.

What I posted is a much more plausible explanation for why Intel would
have left the low end chipset business than anything else I've read,
although I'll admit to having given up on that thread since it has
degenerated into mutual abuse.

Far from Intel seeming to be intimidated by much of anything that's
happened, it seems to be pursuing its usual take-no-prisoners style of
business.

Someone in the business I spoke with recently seems to have taken an
Inquirer story

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25496

seriously. It, like what I take to be another rumor posted here, about
Intel having onboard Java support, would be fascinating, if true, but I
doubt if it's even remotely true.

Sad? Yeah, a little. My take is that the business is no longer driven
by technology. The technologists here are all google-eyed over AMD's
technology decisions, which really seem to have been shrewder than
Intel's. That's all neat, but not neat enough to drive the business.
Intel apparently stopped thinking technology long ago, they are
dominating the business, and money poured into lawsuits isn't going to
put any exciting technology on the table or change Intel's aggressive
posture, which was the point of the post.

Now, Intel is doing its best to pump up the rumor mill prior to IDF
about a new low-power strategy. In retrospect, the Apple announcement
and Jobs' remarks about performance per watt were just part of that
publicity build-up. I'm hoping they're going to put something new and
exciting on the table, but recent experience tells me not to prepare to
be less than amazed. At least they've got the correct figure of merit,
which is performance per watt.

I'm posting in a forum where there's a pluarality for carrying
microprocessor technology into the next generation on the shoulders of
lawyers. If that isn't sad, I don't know what is.

RM

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

On 22 Aug 2005 04:03:04 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 01:10:56 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1124491626.761699.199710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/76418/analysis-whats-behind-the-chipset-shortage.html
>> >>
>> >> Once a predator, always a predator, I guess. Everything adds up to
>> >> 100%, and what Intel gets, AMD doesn't get. Isn't there an agency,
>> >> perhaps outside the US, to deal with this sort of thing?
>> >
>> >On what planet and in what universe is this purported "behaviour",
>> >even if accurate, require an "agency" to deal with it? What smallest
>> >smidgen of this "behaviour" is by whatever torturous reasoning illegal
>> >or immoral or unethical? I really want to know the answer to this,
>> >Robert.
>>
>> It's just another iTurd Felger. He can't take the heat but he can't resist
>> either.... sad really.
>>
>
>It probably did reflect bad judgment on my part to make that post.
>Just among other things, I'm at a point in my life where I really don't
>want to have conversations that include bathroom jokes.
>
>What I posted is a much more plausible explanation for why Intel would
>have left the low end chipset business than anything else I've read,
>although I'll admit to having given up on that thread since it has
>degenerated into mutual abuse.

Pity that - if you'd read the thread, and weren't quite so quick on the
draw, you'd have seen that that explanation had already been covered.

My take is that Intel just doesn't want to have their technology,
especially a "platform", being sold for $299./per system - it just doesn't
fit a platform strategy. OTOH, leaving the low-end to 3rd party chipsets
ruins their "single image" advantage in the business low-end... and they've
already ceded the gaming high-end to nVidia. It's going to be interesting
to hear just what it is that Otellini is going to pull from his magic hat
in the next couple of weeks.

>Far from Intel seeming to be intimidated by much of anything that's
>happened, it seems to be pursuing its usual take-no-prisoners style of
>business.
>
>Someone in the business I spoke with recently seems to have taken an
>Inquirer story
>
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25496
>
>seriously. It, like what I take to be another rumor posted here, about
>Intel having onboard Java support, would be fascinating, if true, but I
>doubt if it's even remotely true.

I don't see what's so exciting about Java-assist - nuthin' new there.:-)
As for the Elbrus connection and VLIW, I hope this is not Merced-redux.

>Sad? Yeah, a little. My take is that the business is no longer driven
>by technology. The technologists here are all google-eyed over AMD's
>technology decisions, which really seem to have been shrewder than
>Intel's. That's all neat, but not neat enough to drive the business.
>Intel apparently stopped thinking technology long ago, they are
>dominating the business, and money poured into lawsuits isn't going to
>put any exciting technology on the table or change Intel's aggressive
>posture, which was the point of the post.

We've heard all this guff from you before... umpteen times. Repeating it
won't make AMD and their "technology", which you apparently refuse to even
sample, go away.

>Now, Intel is doing its best to pump up the rumor mill prior to IDF
>about a new low-power strategy. In retrospect, the Apple announcement
>and Jobs' remarks about performance per watt were just part of that
>publicity build-up. I'm hoping they're going to put something new and
>exciting on the table, but recent experience tells me not to prepare to
>be less than amazed. At least they've got the correct figure of merit,
>which is performance per watt.
>
>I'm posting in a forum where there's a pluarality for carrying
>microprocessor technology into the next generation on the shoulders of
>lawyers. If that isn't sad, I don't know what is.

That is utter BS and you know it; hell just above, you are blaming people
for being "google-eyed" by technology - make up your mind. For obvious
reasons, you have never been frustrated by the lack of availability of
AMD64 systems in the mainstream market, both desktop and notebook. Now
that we know precisely why -- the dominant player has been running a
protection racket -- I for one am hoping that the situation can be
repaired; if it takes lawyers and court cases, so be it. A better product
just deserves recognition for what it is.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

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

George Macdonald wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:

<snip>

> >
> >Someone in the business I spoke with recently seems to have taken an
> >Inquirer story
> >
> >http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25496
> >
> >seriously. It, like what I take to be another rumor posted here, about
> >Intel having onboard Java support, would be fascinating, if true, but I
> >doubt if it's even remotely true.
>
> I don't see what's so exciting about Java-assist - nuthin' new there.:-)
> As for the Elbrus connection and VLIW, I hope this is not Merced-redux.
>

I think people who write for the inquirer probably smoke alot of weed.
Management knows it and doesn't mind because they know how to get stuff
on slashdot, which is good for business.

Java support is nothing new? Since when?

> >Sad? Yeah, a little. My take is that the business is no longer driven
> >by technology. The technologists here are all google-eyed over AMD's
> >technology decisions, which really seem to have been shrewder than
> >Intel's. That's all neat, but not neat enough to drive the business.
> >Intel apparently stopped thinking technology long ago, they are
> >dominating the business, and money poured into lawsuits isn't going to
> >put any exciting technology on the table or change Intel's aggressive
> >posture, which was the point of the post.
>
> We've heard all this guff from you before... umpteen times. Repeating it
> won't make AMD and their "technology", which you apparently refuse to even
> sample, go away.
>

I expect the "supercomputer" of the future to be a cluster with "Intel
Inside" labels all over the place. Whether it's x86 or Itanium I'd
hesitate to place a bet right now.

All prognostications about technology are risky, and when I find out
just how wrong I was, it'll be interesting to look back and try to see
what it was I missed I why I should have seen it.

In the meantime, the figure of merit that matters is, indeed,
performance per watt, and, while I've never been a big admirer of Steve
Jobs, he's gotten to see what everybody's got, and he thinks Intel has
the strategy of the future. Without that data point, I might think
Power architecture stood a chance. If Jobs' claims are anywhere near
correct, I don't think Power stands a chance.

Opteron has all the right stuff for supercomputing, and it *still* can
barely crack the Top 500. Based on what I've seen so far, even if AMD
managed to meet or beat Intel's new low power offerings, they still
wouldn't have much of a future.

Markets don't care what I think. They do whatever they want to do
without asking me, but my bet is that Intel is the future for the kind
of computing I do. You're free to put your own energies wherever you
think best.

And I don't like lawyers.

RM

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

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124819793.978193.111230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> >
>> >Someone in the business I spoke with recently seems to have taken an
>> >Inquirer story
>> >
>> >http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25496
>> >
>> >seriously. It, like what I take to be another rumor posted here,
>> >about
>> >Intel having onboard Java support, would be fascinating, if true, but
>> >I
>> >doubt if it's even remotely true.
>>
>> I don't see what's so exciting about Java-assist - nuthin' new
>> there.:-)
>> As for the Elbrus connection and VLIW, I hope this is not
>> Merced-redux.
>>
>
> I think people who write for the inquirer probably smoke alot of weed.
> Management knows it and doesn't mind because they know how to get stuff
> on slashdot, which is good for business.
>
> Java support is nothing new? Since when?
>
>> >Sad? Yeah, a little. My take is that the business is no longer
>> >driven
>> >by technology. The technologists here are all google-eyed over AMD's
>> >technology decisions, which really seem to have been shrewder than
>> >Intel's. That's all neat, but not neat enough to drive the business.
>> >Intel apparently stopped thinking technology long ago, they are
>> >dominating the business, and money poured into lawsuits isn't going
>> >to
>> >put any exciting technology on the table or change Intel's aggressive
>> >posture, which was the point of the post.
>>
>> We've heard all this guff from you before... umpteen times. Repeating
>> it
>> won't make AMD and their "technology", which you apparently refuse to
>> even
>> sample, go away.
>>
>
> I expect the "supercomputer" of the future to be a cluster with "Intel
> Inside" labels all over the place. Whether it's x86 or Itanium I'd
> hesitate to place a bet right now.

Not gonna be Itanium. And Intel has dropped the SC business and appears
to have no interest. Of course one could plug a bunch of PCIX IB HCA
cards into some cheap dell boxes.... like the guy did with the G5 Macs.
Cray picked Opterons and IBM is using Power or Intel X86, depending.
>
> All prognostications about technology are risky, and when I find out
> just how wrong I was, it'll be interesting to look back and try to see
> what it was I missed I why I should have seen it.

That's the trouble with the future. It's so hard to predict.
>
> In the meantime, the figure of merit that matters is, indeed,
> performance per watt, and, while I've never been a big admirer of Steve
> Jobs, he's gotten to see what everybody's got, and he thinks Intel has
> the strategy of the future. Without that data point, I might think
> Power architecture stood a chance. If Jobs' claims are anywhere near
> correct, I don't think Power stands a chance.

? What is it about power that makes it less efficient than x86? One
could design a Power M if one chose. We could go into my opinion about
why Jobs did what he did, but I like to eat.
>
> Opteron has all the right stuff for supercomputing, and it *still* can
> barely crack the Top 500. Based on what I've seen so far, even if AMD
> managed to meet or beat Intel's new low power offerings, they still
> wouldn't have much of a future.

There is no reason that AMD shouldn't surpass Intel in low power should
they choose to. SOI has some advantage that way. And the design
techniques are not trade secrets.
>
> Markets don't care what I think. They do whatever they want to do
> without asking me, but my bet is that Intel is the future for the kind
> of computing I do. You're free to put your own energies wherever you
> think best.

What kind of computing do you do? If it is top end HPC, then the future
is likely very large clusters of special purpose hardware ala blue gene.
If it is fair to middling HPC on a shoestring then clusters of white
boxes or blades with intel or opteron as seems cheapest at teh moment.
If it's high availability transaction processing, a nice Z or I series
will do the job.

del
>
> And I don't like lawyers.
>
> RM
>

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

On 23 Aug 2005 10:56:34 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >
>> >Someone in the business I spoke with recently seems to have taken an
>> >Inquirer story
>> >
>> >http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25496
>> >
>> >seriously. It, like what I take to be another rumor posted here, about
>> >Intel having onboard Java support, would be fascinating, if true, but I
>> >doubt if it's even remotely true.
>>
>> I don't see what's so exciting about Java-assist - nuthin' new there.:-)
>> As for the Elbrus connection and VLIW, I hope this is not Merced-redux.
>>
>
>I think people who write for the inquirer probably smoke alot of weed.
>Management knows it and doesn't mind because they know how to get stuff
>on slashdot, which is good for business.
>
>Java support is nothing new? Since when?

Sun?

>> >Sad? Yeah, a little. My take is that the business is no longer driven
>> >by technology. The technologists here are all google-eyed over AMD's
>> >technology decisions, which really seem to have been shrewder than
>> >Intel's. That's all neat, but not neat enough to drive the business.
>> >Intel apparently stopped thinking technology long ago, they are
>> >dominating the business, and money poured into lawsuits isn't going to
>> >put any exciting technology on the table or change Intel's aggressive
>> >posture, which was the point of the post.
>>
>> We've heard all this guff from you before... umpteen times. Repeating it
>> won't make AMD and their "technology", which you apparently refuse to even
>> sample, go away.
>>
>
>I expect the "supercomputer" of the future to be a cluster with "Intel
>Inside" labels all over the place. Whether it's x86 or Itanium I'd
>hesitate to place a bet right now.

The party's over. When is it going to sink in?

>All prognostications about technology are risky, and when I find out
>just how wrong I was, it'll be interesting to look back and try to see
>what it was I missed I why I should have seen it.
>
>In the meantime, the figure of merit that matters is, indeed,
>performance per watt, and, while I've never been a big admirer of Steve
>Jobs, he's gotten to see what everybody's got, and he thinks Intel has
>the strategy of the future. Without that data point, I might think
>Power architecture stood a chance. If Jobs' claims are anywhere near
>correct, I don't think Power stands a chance.

Jobs is a technical chump... and he's just been chumped again. AMD64 is
leagues ahead of Intel on performance per watt and has been for ~2 years.
My favorite quote from this recently discussed Intel presentation
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/ [...] /index.php is "We were
behind".<gulp>

>Opteron has all the right stuff for supercomputing, and it *still* can
>barely crack the Top 500. Based on what I've seen so far, even if AMD
>managed to meet or beat Intel's new low power offerings, they still
>wouldn't have much of a future.

That is again, utter BS. In fact I gave you a reference very recently
which showed that in MP super computing, AMD was at the top - you never
listen! Your "opinions" are all based on your prejudiced personal picture
of computing and have no basis in documented fact.

>Markets don't care what I think. They do whatever they want to do
>without asking me, but my bet is that Intel is the future for the kind
>of computing I do. You're free to put your own energies wherever you
>think best.

And again we differ - that's allowed... as I've pointed out umpteen times.

>And I don't like lawyers.

How fashionable!

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

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

Del Cecchi wrote:

> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> Not gonna be Itanium. And Intel has dropped the SC business and appears
> to have no interest.

If Intel ever was interested in supercomputers, it was only from the
point of view of publicity, and I doubt if their interest in publicity
has changed--any more than IBM's. I read recently about a comment from
Intel that they're not at all unhappy with the Top 500 benchmark or the
attention the Top 500 list gets. Of course not. They can pile up
boxes faster than anyone else on the planet.

> Of course one could plug a bunch of PCIX IB HCA
> cards into some cheap dell boxes.... like the guy did with the G5 Macs.
> Cray picked Opterons and IBM is using Power or Intel X86, depending.

That's more or less what's happening, and that's more or less what's
going to continue to happen, except that the IB won't necessarily be
going through PCIX.

> >
> > In the meantime, the figure of merit that matters is, indeed,
> > performance per watt, and, while I've never been a big admirer of Steve
> > Jobs, he's gotten to see what everybody's got, and he thinks Intel has
> > the strategy of the future. Without that data point, I might think
> > Power architecture stood a chance. If Jobs' claims are anywhere near
> > correct, I don't think Power stands a chance.
>
> ? What is it about power that makes it less efficient than x86?

I don't think there is anything about Power that makes it less
efficient than x86. If anything, I'd guess the advantage would be the
other way around.

> One could design a Power M if one chose. We could go into my opinion about
> why Jobs did what he did, but I like to eat.

I'm sure IBM could design lots of things. The question is, will they?

My comment wasn't based on Jobs deciding to go with Intel. It was
based on the claims of relative performance per watt. Integer
performance, IIRC, but that's what most bioclusters are doing anyway,
and it's not irrelevant as a clue to what relative floating point
performance might be.

As to why Apple went with Intel rather than IBM, I think IBM and AMD
have the same problem: they just can't come close to Intel in terms of
the variety of specialized solutions they can afford to develop. IBM
hasn't been able to provide what Apple has thought it needed and Intel
has promised them the moon.

Even discounting a significant part of the guessing as blue smoke and
mirrors, it all confirms what I see as the big picture: the only thing
that matters in the long run is cash flow because the capital needs of
the business just keep climbing. Not quite the same thing happened in
automobiles, but more or less exactly the same thing happened in
commercial aircraft (and jet engines, for that matter).

> >
> > Opteron has all the right stuff for supercomputing, and it *still* can
> > barely crack the Top 500. Based on what I've seen so far, even if AMD
> > managed to meet or beat Intel's new low power offerings, they still
> > wouldn't have much of a future.
>
> There is no reason that AMD shouldn't surpass Intel in low power should
> they choose to. SOI has some advantage that way. And the design
> techniques are not trade secrets.

The only reason is money.

I'll happily admit that what Intel has shown recently, aside from the
ability to generate cash, is the apparent ability to squander it. From
the point of view of sentimental favorites, AMD looks great: scrappy
little competitor does more with less. Nevertheless, I'm following
Deep Throat's advice and following the money.

> >
> > Markets don't care what I think. They do whatever they want to do
> > without asking me, but my bet is that Intel is the future for the kind
> > of computing I do. You're free to put your own energies wherever you
> > think best.
>
> What kind of computing do you do? If it is top end HPC, then the future
> is likely very large clusters of special purpose hardware ala blue gene.

What Blue Gene has going for it is low power operation. When low power
clusters are purchased as a commodity in terms of $/performance, IBM is
going to have a tough time of it.

RM

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2005 10:56:34 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >George Macdonald wrote:
> >
> >> Robert Myers wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >
> >> >Someone in the business I spoke with recently seems to have taken an
> >> >Inquirer story
> >> >
> >> >http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25496
> >> >
> >> >seriously. It, like what I take to be another rumor posted here, about
> >> >Intel having onboard Java support, would be fascinating, if true, but I
> >> >doubt if it's even remotely true.
> >>
> >> I don't see what's so exciting about Java-assist - nuthin' new there.:-)
> >> As for the Elbrus connection and VLIW, I hope this is not Merced-redux.
> >>
> >
> >I think people who write for the inquirer probably smoke alot of weed.
> >Management knows it and doesn't mind because they know how to get stuff
> >on slashdot, which is good for business.
> >
> >Java support is nothing new? Since when?
>
> Sun?
>

And since when does Sun make x86? Since when, for that matter, does
Sun make a chip that matters to any but a shrinking base of existing
customers?

<snip>

> >
> >In the meantime, the figure of merit that matters is, indeed,
> >performance per watt, and, while I've never been a big admirer of Steve
> >Jobs, he's gotten to see what everybody's got, and he thinks Intel has
> >the strategy of the future. Without that data point, I might think
> >Power architecture stood a chance. If Jobs' claims are anywhere near
> >correct, I don't think Power stands a chance.
>
> Jobs is a technical chump... and he's just been chumped again. AMD64 is
> leagues ahead of Intel on performance per watt and has been for ~2 years.
> My favorite quote from this recently discussed Intel presentation
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/ [...] /index.php is "We were
> behind".<gulp>
>
That's all very well, but the problem wasn't that IBM couldn't sell
chips to Apple for servers, the problem was that they couldn't sell
chips for mobile operation, a market in which Intel has been doing very
nicely.

And, at that, Jobs didn't (apparently) base his decision on what's on
the table now. Intel has plenty on the table in terms of low power
operation to be credible, and Intel clearly promised much better things
to come, with the focus on performance/watt. That's just what Jobs
wanted to hear.

> >Opteron has all the right stuff for supercomputing, and it *still* can
> >barely crack the Top 500. Based on what I've seen so far, even if AMD
> >managed to meet or beat Intel's new low power offerings, they still
> >wouldn't have much of a future.
>
> That is again, utter BS.

There's no BS. All you have to do is get a Top 500 list and count, on
your fingers if you have to. My disdain for the Top 500 list is well
known, but I'd have to be persuaded that what it seems to be saying
about who owns the market, both in terms of who is currently dominant
and what seems to be an unmistakeable trend, is irrelevant.

RM

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

Robert Myers wrote:

>And, at that, Jobs didn't (apparently) base his decision on what's on
>the table now. Intel has plenty on the table in terms of low power
>operation to be credible, and Intel clearly promised much better things
>to come, with the focus on performance/watt. That's just what Jobs
>wanted to hear.

Oh, I'm sure they told him exactly what he wanted to hear. Salesmen
tend to do that.

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:56:33 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:
>
>>And, at that, Jobs didn't (apparently) base his decision on what's on
>>the table now. Intel has plenty on the table in terms of low power
>>operation to be credible, and Intel clearly promised much better things
>>to come, with the focus on performance/watt. That's just what Jobs
>>wanted to hear.
>
>Oh, I'm sure they told him exactly what he wanted to hear. Salesmen
>tend to do that.

And of course, salesmen, like Jobs, are ironically easily conned - funny
that.:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald