Re: Curly soon to be out of a job
From: John Smith (a_at_nonymous.com)
Date: 02/07/05
- Next message: Syltrem: "Re: Intrusion attempts"
- Previous message: Ed Wilts: "Re: DVE and maximum file count"
- In reply to: Rob Young: "Re: Curly soon to be out of a job"
- Next in thread: JF Mezei: "Re: Curly soon to be out of a job"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:16:43 -0500
Rob Young wrote:
> In article <6tadnV2nw4vsdpnfRVn-2w@igs.net>, "John Smith"
> <a@nonymous.com> writes:
>> Sue,
>>
>> I appreciate your opinion and thoughts.
>>
>> Curly was less Napoleonic in his dealings with staff than carly(tm)
>> - it's actually nice to hear - but don't forget I never badmouthed
>> the man personally....only his decisions.
>>
>> As to carly(tm), never equate 'smart' with 'wise'.
>>
>>
>> I won't ask you to answer these in a public forum but I will ask you
>> to consider the following questions I'm sure you have opinions on,
>> and reflect upon how hubris has been the downfall of man good people
>> and corporations:
>>
>> - Do you agree with the report published by DEC/Compaq engineers
>> about the relative merits of Alpha vs. IA64? (see the recently
>> posted url from Keith C.)
>
> That paper has been around for quite some time. It is a great
> paper. But alpha is no more and it isn't as if Itanium is
> a dog.
>
>> - Do you believe that killing Alpha in favor of IA64 was the correct
>> decision for all Compaq's product lines that were slated to continue
>> to use Alpha or were slated to use it (NSK)?
>
> Yes. For the same reason when UltraSparc goes away it will be
> quite apparent that was a good decision. The problem as Paul
> DeMone outlines at RWT is merchant vs. house. Merchant will
> always win.
>
> Here Paul is tutoring Linus on the advantages of merchant
> versus house, a key segment:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4swmv
>
> Why is IPF being a merchant so important? Easy, its a
> more efficient business model and division of labour
> than the house RISC business model. HW OEMs get
> out of the increasingly costly processor development
> business* and share the cost of IPF development with
> many other OEMs in the price they pay Intel for the
> processors. In return they get a high end MPU with at
> least as much RAS, performance, and flexibility as
> they likely could have afforded in their own design but
> still retain the opportunity to differentiate and add value
> to their own products with their unique system design
> expertise. Their products also present one part of a
> larger total market to ISVs than would a unqiue, vendor
> specific ISA.
>
> *Including programming tool chains and OS support.
>
>> - Do you believe that the loss of revenue and resulting profits, and
>> the porting costs incurred from that decision were justifiable to
>> Compaq/HP shareholders?
>
> Can you specify exact dollar amounts? Can you also show
> the win transitioning house to merchant and where on the timeline
> that becomes obvious? For SGI, they have just about turned the
> corner. As Paul points out in another post, SGI is now 80/20
> IPF/MIPS. Perhaps with HP the crossover will occur 50/50?
>
>> - Do you agree that most of the delays in advancing Alpha design
>> were a result of on-again/off-again funding for chip
>> design/development?
>
> It is dead. Get over it.
>
>> - Do you believe that the performance of IA64 will match the expected
>> performance of Alpha at like points in time had Alpha development
>> been continued on a properly funded timetable?, ie. IA64 without
>> DEC/Compaq chip people in 2007 vs. Alpha fully funded with
>> DEC/Compaq chip people in 2007 (just to pick a date - choose another
>> date if you wish).
>
> Small consideration. Larger consideration for Enterprises is
> IPF value add (see above) and increased feature set of Itanium
> (Foxton, Pellston, etc.)
>
>> - Do you believe that the low-volume high-cost chip called IA64 is a
>> better bet even if it is $100 cheaper than a low-volume high-cost
>> Alpha given the billions sunk into IA64 and its relative sales
>> volume?
>
> Absolutely. Intel has FAB space. FABs cost big money and fortunately
> Intel cranks out millions of CPUs to offset the cost. IBM doesn't
> and of course loses money with IBM micro.
How much money do you think IBM will lose when they start pumping out
millions of these puppies, based on Power 5 - vs. Intel's 100,000 or so
(give or take a few dozen) IA64-'s?
IBM already owns the high-end cpu market (what we used to call the Alpha
market space), both on volume of cpu's produced (however used) and on almost
any given day based on performance too. Add to this the additional revenue
that a 'Cell' cpu brings back into the Power family for further R&D and
manufacturing economies, and you have the basis for continued leadership in
a chip architecture that will power (no pun intended) the server space.
Itanic just doesn't have the traction in the market - and as you're so fond
of saying (and I paraphrase) - niche cpu's just don't survive. Adios
Itanic.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1208&e=2&u=/nm/20050207/tc_
nm/tech_cell_dc&sid=95573652
Sony's 'Supercomputer on a Chip' to Make Debut
By Daniel Sorid
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The highly anticipated microchip that will power
the Sony PlayStation 3 video game system will be described in detail for the
first time on Monday by its developers, IBM, Sony Corp. and Toshiba Corp.
Dubbed a "supercomputer on a chip," the Cell microprocessor has until now
been long on ambition but short on specifics. At a technical conference
here, the three electronics giants say they plan to disclose the inner
workings of the chip, which is designed to run portable electronics, home
entertainment devices and powerful computers.
Aimed squarely at the "digital home" market highly sought-after by Intel
Corp., the Cell initiative, which has been in development for more than
three years, is viewed by some as a formidable, if fledgling, competitor to
the world's largest chip maker.
The Cell chip will appear in the PlayStation 3, the follow-on to Sony's
successful video game console that is expected to be released next year.
Cell will likely also be marketed as an ideal technology for televisions and
supercomputers, and everything in between, said Kevin Krewell, the editor in
chief of Microprocessor Report.
Cell "promises to be a very exciting challenge to mainstream processors,"
Krewell wrote in a recent issue, naming it the best chip technology of 2004,
remarkable if only for the fact that no one has actually seen the chip in
action.
According to released details, Cell is based on the core of IBM's existing
Power processor line, which is used in desktop PCs made by Apple Computer
Inc.. Cell contains multiple cores, allowing it to perform like many chips
in one.
It is capable of "massive floating point processing, optimized for
compute-intensive workloads and broadband rich media applications, including
computer entertainment, movies and other forms of digital content,"
according to an earlier statement from the companies.
Sony and IBM have called Cell a strong technology for high-powered
workstations and supercomputers, with multiple Cell chips able to work as a
cluster.
"The supercomputer-like processing and performance of the Cell
processor-based workstation is just the beginning of what we expect will be
a wide range of powerful next-generation solutions resulting from our joint
development efforts," Colin Parris, an IBM vice president, said in a
November statement.
If history is any lesson, Cell is by no means guaranteed to encroach on the
most successful microprocessor technology to date, the so-called x86
architecture that is the mainstay of the PC world and the profit center for
both Intel and Advanced Micro Devices Inc..
Intel itself once aimed at pushing the x86 technology to the margins with a
chip called Itanium it developed at great cost with Hewlett-Packard Co.
After a cool market reception, the Itanium project drifted away from those
grand expectations. Today, Itanium remains a niche product marketed
primarily at the relatively limited segment of supercomputers and high-end
servers.
- Next message: Syltrem: "Re: Intrusion attempts"
- Previous message: Ed Wilts: "Re: DVE and maximum file count"
- In reply to: Rob Young: "Re: Curly soon to be out of a job"
- Next in thread: JF Mezei: "Re: Curly soon to be out of a job"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
