Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php
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/2005/08/17/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*!
--
Keith
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*!
--
Keith
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/2005/08/17/dualcore/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)
"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124308105.322979.179460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/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?)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?)
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news😛an.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/2005/08/17/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*!
>
> --
> 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
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news😛an.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/2005/08/17/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*!
>
> --
> 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
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?)
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.
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?)
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
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"
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?)
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
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?)
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
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?)
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
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
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:28:58 GMT, Bill Davidsen
<davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
[snipped]
>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.
So a D/C P-M DP with ES available early fall '05 (like, soon) hasn't been
publicly announced yet?
I guess I better not talk about one, then...
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:28:58 GMT, Bill Davidsen
<davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
[snipped]
>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.
So a D/C P-M DP with ES available early fall '05 (like, soon) hasn't been
publicly announced yet?
I guess I better not talk about one, then...
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> 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.
>
Probably has something to do with the fact that AMD64 is the
hottest thing right now. Intel just tacked two AMD64-capable
cores together in a MCP, and voila: a cheap AMD64-capable
multi-chip package that they could delude the masses into
thinking of as a competitor to AMD's dual-core chips.
Doing the same thing with the P-M is supposed to eventually
happen. Sort of. Apparently the next generation will be
dual-core and redesigned from the ground up instead of evolved
from the P3. Still haven't heard if it will be AMD64-capable.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> 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.
>
Probably has something to do with the fact that AMD64 is the
hottest thing right now. Intel just tacked two AMD64-capable
cores together in a MCP, and voila: a cheap AMD64-capable
multi-chip package that they could delude the masses into
thinking of as a competitor to AMD's dual-core chips.
Doing the same thing with the P-M is supposed to eventually
happen. Sort of. Apparently the next generation will be
dual-core and redesigned from the ground up instead of evolved
from the P3. Still haven't heard if it will be AMD64-capable.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)
Rob Stow wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Probably has something to do with the fact that AMD64 is the hottest
> thing right now. Intel just tacked two AMD64-capable cores together in
> a MCP, and voila: a cheap AMD64-capable multi-chip package that they
> could delude the masses into thinking of as a competitor to AMD's
> dual-core chips.
>
> Doing the same thing with the P-M is supposed to eventually happen. Sort
> of. Apparently the next generation will be dual-core and redesigned
> from the ground up instead of evolved from the P3. Still haven't heard
> if it will be AMD64-capable.
I think AMD has finally managed to tarnish "Intel Inside."
--
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.
Rob Stow wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Probably has something to do with the fact that AMD64 is the hottest
> thing right now. Intel just tacked two AMD64-capable cores together in
> a MCP, and voila: a cheap AMD64-capable multi-chip package that they
> could delude the masses into thinking of as a competitor to AMD's
> dual-core chips.
>
> Doing the same thing with the P-M is supposed to eventually happen. Sort
> of. Apparently the next generation will be dual-core and redesigned
> from the ground up instead of evolved from the P3. Still haven't heard
> if it will be AMD64-capable.
I think AMD has finally managed to tarnish "Intel Inside."
--
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?)
Rob Stow wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Probably has something to do with the fact that AMD64 is the hottest
> thing right now. Intel just tacked two AMD64-capable cores together in
> a MCP, and voila: a cheap AMD64-capable multi-chip package that they
> could delude the masses into thinking of as a competitor to AMD's
> dual-core chips.
The 64 bit is a good point. For many applications AMD dual core or Intel
dual core will be equally satisfactory, and in most cases will perform
about as well as two-way SMP. No delusion needed, they compete.
>
> Doing the same thing with the P-M is supposed to eventually happen. Sort
> of. Apparently the next generation will be dual-core and redesigned
> from the ground up instead of evolved from the P3. Still haven't heard
> if it will be AMD64-capable.
I had hoped for a drop-in dual core P-M for my notebook, but I wasn't
really expecting to get it :-(
--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Rob Stow wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Probably has something to do with the fact that AMD64 is the hottest
> thing right now. Intel just tacked two AMD64-capable cores together in
> a MCP, and voila: a cheap AMD64-capable multi-chip package that they
> could delude the masses into thinking of as a competitor to AMD's
> dual-core chips.
The 64 bit is a good point. For many applications AMD dual core or Intel
dual core will be equally satisfactory, and in most cases will perform
about as well as two-way SMP. No delusion needed, they compete.
>
> Doing the same thing with the P-M is supposed to eventually happen. Sort
> of. Apparently the next generation will be dual-core and redesigned
> from the ground up instead of evolved from the P3. Still haven't heard
> if it will be AMD64-capable.
I had hoped for a drop-in dual core P-M for my notebook, but I wasn't
really expecting to get it :-(
--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)
CJT wrote:
> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>>Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>Probably has something to do with the fact that AMD64 is the hottest
>>thing right now. Intel just tacked two AMD64-capable cores together in
>>a MCP, and voila: a cheap AMD64-capable multi-chip package that they
>>could delude the masses into thinking of as a competitor to AMD's
>>dual-core chips.
>>
>>Doing the same thing with the P-M is supposed to eventually happen. Sort
>>of. Apparently the next generation will be dual-core and redesigned
>>from the ground up instead of evolved from the P3. Still haven't heard
>>if it will be AMD64-capable.
>
>
> I think AMD has finally managed to tarnish "Intel Inside."
>
>
Finally ? Where have you been hiding for the last 4 or 5 years
? AMD has had the better CPUs for desktops and 2-way servers
and workstations since the Athlon XP and MP transitioned from
0.18 to 0.13 microns. Even before then the Athlon XP and MP
outperformed the P4 and Xeon - but also ran pretty danged hot.
The only CPU market Intel has held the technological edge in for
the past 4 or 5 years has been the mobile market, where the
Pentium M has been king and looks like it will reign for a while
longer.
CJT wrote:
> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>>Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>Probably has something to do with the fact that AMD64 is the hottest
>>thing right now. Intel just tacked two AMD64-capable cores together in
>>a MCP, and voila: a cheap AMD64-capable multi-chip package that they
>>could delude the masses into thinking of as a competitor to AMD's
>>dual-core chips.
>>
>>Doing the same thing with the P-M is supposed to eventually happen. Sort
>>of. Apparently the next generation will be dual-core and redesigned
>>from the ground up instead of evolved from the P3. Still haven't heard
>>if it will be AMD64-capable.
>
>
> I think AMD has finally managed to tarnish "Intel Inside."
>
>
Finally ? Where have you been hiding for the last 4 or 5 years
? AMD has had the better CPUs for desktops and 2-way servers
and workstations since the Athlon XP and MP transitioned from
0.18 to 0.13 microns. Even before then the Athlon XP and MP
outperformed the P4 and Xeon - but also ran pretty danged hot.
The only CPU market Intel has held the technological edge in for
the past 4 or 5 years has been the mobile market, where the
Pentium M has been king and looks like it will reign for a while
longer.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)
Rob Stow wrote:
> CJT wrote:
>
>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Probably has something to do with the fact that AMD64 is the hottest
>>> thing right now. Intel just tacked two AMD64-capable cores together
>>> in a MCP, and voila: a cheap AMD64-capable multi-chip package that
>>> they could delude the masses into thinking of as a competitor to
>>> AMD's dual-core chips.
>>>
>>> Doing the same thing with the P-M is supposed to eventually happen.
>>> Sort of. Apparently the next generation will be dual-core and
>>> redesigned from the ground up instead of evolved from the P3. Still
>>> haven't heard if it will be AMD64-capable.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think AMD has finally managed to tarnish "Intel Inside."
>>
>>
>
> Finally ? Where have you been hiding for the last 4 or 5 years ? AMD
> has had the better CPUs for desktops and 2-way servers and workstations
> since the Athlon XP and MP transitioned from 0.18 to 0.13 microns.
> Even before then the Athlon XP and MP outperformed the P4 and Xeon - but
> also ran pretty danged hot.
>
> The only CPU market Intel has held the technological edge in for the
> past 4 or 5 years has been the mobile market, where the Pentium M has
> been king and looks like it will reign for a while longer.
While I tend to agree with you, the perception among the masses has been
different, IMHO. But being "the hottest thing right now" changes that.
--
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.
Rob Stow wrote:
> CJT wrote:
>
>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Probably has something to do with the fact that AMD64 is the hottest
>>> thing right now. Intel just tacked two AMD64-capable cores together
>>> in a MCP, and voila: a cheap AMD64-capable multi-chip package that
>>> they could delude the masses into thinking of as a competitor to
>>> AMD's dual-core chips.
>>>
>>> Doing the same thing with the P-M is supposed to eventually happen.
>>> Sort of. Apparently the next generation will be dual-core and
>>> redesigned from the ground up instead of evolved from the P3. Still
>>> haven't heard if it will be AMD64-capable.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think AMD has finally managed to tarnish "Intel Inside."
>>
>>
>
> Finally ? Where have you been hiding for the last 4 or 5 years ? AMD
> has had the better CPUs for desktops and 2-way servers and workstations
> since the Athlon XP and MP transitioned from 0.18 to 0.13 microns.
> Even before then the Athlon XP and MP outperformed the P4 and Xeon - but
> also ran pretty danged hot.
>
> The only CPU market Intel has held the technological edge in for the
> past 4 or 5 years has been the mobile market, where the Pentium M has
> been king and looks like it will reign for a while longer.
While I tend to agree with you, the perception among the masses has been
different, IMHO. But being "the hottest thing right now" changes that.
--
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?)
"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:lxkNe.3038$r54.2267@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> 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?"
"Of course it doesn't dear!"
(Well, maybe pleasing plump, chubby ... but not "fat" of course.)
> 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
--
... Hank
http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:lxkNe.3038$r54.2267@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> 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?"
"Of course it doesn't dear!"
(Well, maybe pleasing plump, chubby ... but not "fat" of course.)
> 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
--
... Hank
http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> 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?
I can't see Intel even having worried about whether it had HT or not.
They just wanted a dual-core in working condition, HT or no HT. The
fact that they were able to get some HT-enabled DC processors out of it
is a bonus as far as they are concerned.
Regarding why P4 instead of P-M? My assumption is that P-M is too
complicated to simply join together side-by-side to get a dual core. I
think P-4 is a major hack job anyways, dual-core or no dual-core. They
mentioned that they layed out the circuit patterns of the P4 on a
computer, and let the computer take care of rearranging it. Whereas the
P4 may have had a lot of places free to attach communications lines
between the cores, and if they don't, all they have to do is have the
computer relayout the design so that places to put comm lines appear in
convenient locations.
Yousuf Khan
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> 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?
I can't see Intel even having worried about whether it had HT or not.
They just wanted a dual-core in working condition, HT or no HT. The
fact that they were able to get some HT-enabled DC processors out of it
is a bonus as far as they are concerned.
Regarding why P4 instead of P-M? My assumption is that P-M is too
complicated to simply join together side-by-side to get a dual core. I
think P-4 is a major hack job anyways, dual-core or no dual-core. They
mentioned that they layed out the circuit patterns of the P4 on a
computer, and let the computer take care of rearranging it. Whereas the
P4 may have had a lot of places free to attach communications lines
between the cores, and if they don't, all they have to do is have the
computer relayout the design so that places to put comm lines appear in
convenient locations.
Yousuf Khan
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> writes:
>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?
<speculation> The Pentium M has no multi-processor capabilities, so
making it dual core would have required more work and have had a
longer time-to-market than for the Pentium 4/Xeon. Why does the
Pentium M not have these capabilities when the P6 had them originally?
In the change from the original P6 to the Pentium M they replaced the
bus interface with a Pentium 4 style one; maybe they added one that is
not multiprocessor capable. Or they eliminated multiprocessing
capabilities in other places in order to save power and chip area.
</speculation>
Also, the dual-core chips are for the performance-hungry users. And
the performance chip in Intels marketing is still the Pentium 4 (not
sure if one core of the fastest Pentium D is faster than the fastest
Pentium M, though).
Followups set to comp.arch.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> writes:
>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?
<speculation> The Pentium M has no multi-processor capabilities, so
making it dual core would have required more work and have had a
longer time-to-market than for the Pentium 4/Xeon. Why does the
Pentium M not have these capabilities when the P6 had them originally?
In the change from the original P6 to the Pentium M they replaced the
bus interface with a Pentium 4 style one; maybe they added one that is
not multiprocessor capable. Or they eliminated multiprocessing
capabilities in other places in order to save power and chip area.
</speculation>
Also, the dual-core chips are for the performance-hungry users. And
the performance chip in Intels marketing is still the Pentium 4 (not
sure if one core of the fastest Pentium D is faster than the fastest
Pentium M, though).
Followups set to comp.arch.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.arch (More info?)
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> wrote:
>>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?"
"I think that other one is even nicer."
>
> 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.
Sure.
>
> 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.
🙂
Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen@hda.hydro.com>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> wrote:
>>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?"
"I think that other one is even nicer."
>
> 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.
Sure.
>
> 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.
🙂
Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen@hda.hydro.com>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Home phone and pc compromised by malicious person
- Started by geoffranklyn
- Replies: 2
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram