Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is Centrino brand all that strong?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2005 1:07:42 AM

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

It sounds like a desperate attempt by a competitor to discredit a
successful campaign. However, looking at the details they are indicating
that only people who travel in airports regularly know about Centrino,
and obviously ... techies. But the rest of Mr. or Ms. Joe or Jane
Average? Nada.

Yousuf Khan

More about : centrino brand strong

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2005 5:50:51 AM

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

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:07:42 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>It sounds like a desperate attempt by a competitor to discredit a
>successful campaign. However, looking at the details they are indicating
>that only people who travel in airports regularly know about Centrino,
>and obviously ... techies. But the rest of Mr. or Ms. Joe or Jane
>Average? Nada.

I think where Centrino has REALLY succeeded, despite what AMD is
saying, is in convincing the laptop manufacturers. Just have a look
at what the likes of Toshiba and IBM are selling, it's damn near ALL
Centrino laptops. Whether or not customers buying laptops actually
care is another matter, but the marketing money Intel is providing
along with the Centrino brand is doing wonders for moving products.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2005 11:11:24 AM

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

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:07:42 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>It sounds like a desperate attempt by a competitor to discredit a
>successful campaign. However, looking at the details they are indicating
>that only people who travel in airports regularly know about Centrino,
>and obviously ... techies. But the rest of Mr. or Ms. Joe or Jane
>Average? Nada.
>

Google up

centrino brand strength

and wade through the links yourself. :-).

All the players are smart, all know about marketing and branding, all
know that marketing and branding cost money. Intel has lots of money,
but they are under constant pressure to keep their margins in line.
How would you spend the money?

Brands are very, very expensive, but every marketer wants a
recognizable brand, and whether a brand is "recognizable" or not may
depend on how you ask the question. Look at enough notebooks and
notebook ads with the Centrino logo, and the brand becomes
recognizable, if only from the distinctive shape of the logo--that's
why really good graphics designers make so much. To the prospective
buyer, that logo becomes a feature they want to have, even if they
don't know why (cf. Corinthian leather).

To turn the question around: how much market clout do you think an AMD
logo has?

RM
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2005 8:12:32 PM

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

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:11:24 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:07:42 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>wrote:
>
>>It sounds like a desperate attempt by a competitor to discredit a
>>successful campaign. However, looking at the details they are indicating
>>that only people who travel in airports regularly know about Centrino,
>>and obviously ... techies. But the rest of Mr. or Ms. Joe or Jane
>>Average? Nada.
>>
>
>Google up
>
>centrino brand strength
>
>and wade through the links yourself. :-).
>
>All the players are smart, all know about marketing and branding, all
>know that marketing and branding cost money. Intel has lots of money,
>but they are under constant pressure to keep their margins in line.
>How would you spend the money?
>
>Brands are very, very expensive, but every marketer wants a
>recognizable brand, and whether a brand is "recognizable" or not may
>depend on how you ask the question. Look at enough notebooks and
>notebook ads with the Centrino logo, and the brand becomes
>recognizable, if only from the distinctive shape of the logo--that's
>why really good graphics designers make so much. To the prospective
>buyer, that logo becomes a feature they want to have, even if they
>don't know why (cf. Corinthian leather).

Was (fine) Corinthian Leather really all that successful? Most people
don't know what Centrino is anyway - it's generally perceived as meaning an
Intel CPU... with a possible assocation with long battery life.

>To turn the question around: how much market clout do you think an AMD
>logo has?

If you watch F1 or the Tour de France... maybe? How much clout does Lance
have in the U.S.?<shrug> It's just the wrong color - most people hate
green [try to sell a green car]; they should change it to sky-blue or maybe
puce.</facetious>

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2005 2:01:18 AM

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> It sounds like a desperate attempt by a competitor to discredit a
> successful campaign. However, looking at the details they are indicating
> that only people who travel in airports regularly know about Centrino,
> and obviously ... techies. But the rest of Mr. or Ms. Joe or Jane
> Average? Nada.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Oops, forgot to paste the link:

Intel Centrino brand weak, AMD thinks
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21073

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2005 2:02:04 AM

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

Robert Myers wrote:
> To turn the question around: how much market clout do you think an AMD
> logo has?

Funny, you should ask, looks like AMD is asking itself the same question:

AMD strikes back at Intel brand hegemony
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20890

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2005 4:49:01 AM

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

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:12:32 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:11:24 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>Was (fine) Corinthian Leather really all that successful? Most people
>don't know what Centrino is anyway - it's generally perceived as meaning an
>Intel CPU... with a possible assocation with long battery life.

No no no! Centrino means that you can use WiFi at the top of Mount
Everest! Dontcha know?!? Geez.. If you've got Centrino than you can
use WiFi ANYWHERE! Just watch the commercials! :>

>>To turn the question around: how much market clout do you think an AMD
>>logo has?
>
>If you watch F1 or the Tour de France... maybe? How much clout does Lance
>have in the U.S.?<shrug> It's just the wrong color - most people hate
>green [try to sell a green car]; they should change it to sky-blue or maybe
>puce.</facetious>

Hmm.. I guess I yet again do not fit the standard profile. Not only
do I rather like green, but I also watch F1 and have even been known
to catch the odd bit of the Tour. Maybe that's why I like AMD
processors?! :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2005 1:27:36 PM

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

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:02:04 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:

>> To turn the question around: how much market clout do you think an AMD
>> logo has?
>
>Funny, you should ask, looks like AMD is asking itself the same question:
>
>AMD strikes back at Intel brand hegemony
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20890
>
> Yousuf Khan

I'm glad to see that AMD has started paying more attention to my posts
to comp.*. ;-).

It's an ancient story. A better mousetrap just isn't good enough.

At the risk of dragging the discussion off-topic, another organization
that seems to have gotten religion is NASA:

http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/about/index.html

I didn't direct you to the actual homepage of the Origins program,
because _it_ is still stuck in classic NASA
look-at-the-latest-metal-we-hurled-at-the-heavens mentality. With
that little misstep, though, NASA seems finally to have grasped that
it is more important to tell an engaging story than it is to do the
impossible.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2005 1:28:29 PM

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

Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> scribed:

>No no no! Centrino means that you can use WiFi at the top of Mount
>Everest! Dontcha know?!? Geez.. If you've got Centrino than you can
>use WiFi ANYWHERE! Just watch the commercials! :>

Yeah, in the middle of a park with NOTHING around for hundreds of yards!

That Intel, they're really good at (make up something)...





--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2005 1:46:01 PM

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

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:12:32 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:11:24 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>

<snip>

>>
>>Brands are very, very expensive, but every marketer wants a
>>recognizable brand, and whether a brand is "recognizable" or not may
>>depend on how you ask the question. Look at enough notebooks and
>>notebook ads with the Centrino logo, and the brand becomes
>>recognizable, if only from the distinctive shape of the logo--that's
>>why really good graphics designers make so much. To the prospective
>>buyer, that logo becomes a feature they want to have, even if they
>>don't know why (cf. Corinthian leather).
>
>Was (fine) Corinthian Leather really all that successful?

Corinthian Leather was successful enough to get a writeup in the Wall
Street Journal, and Chrysler stuck with the ad campaign through many
millions of dollars. I think that campaign was well into the focus
group era. Did it sell cars? Would I be spending time here if I
_really_ knew the answer to questions like that? ;-).

>Most people
>don't know what Centrino is anyway - it's generally perceived as meaning an
>Intel CPU... with a possible assocation with long battery life.
>

But it doesn't matter. It's a feature. The feature, you argue, is
poorly correlated in the minds of potential buyers with actual
benefits, but that doesn't matter if it's a feature people want.

If I'm not mistaken, full Centrino is more expensive than
Pentium-M+855 Chipset+OEM-supplied wireless. The OEM is buying the ad
campaign, not the functionality.

>>To turn the question around: how much market clout do you think an AMD
>>logo has?
>
>If you watch F1 or the Tour de France... maybe? How much clout does Lance
>have in the U.S.?<shrug>

Why would an American spend his time riding a bicycle in _France_?
Real men don't ride bicycles, they don't wear shorts like that, they
don't spend time in France or, if forced to do so, don't advertise it,
and they don't use AMD processors. People who ride bicycles, wear
shorts like that, spend time in France, and/or use AMD processors
probably spend their spare time playing weird computer games.

>It's just the wrong color - most people hate
>green [try to sell a green car]; they should change it to sky-blue or maybe
>puce.</facetious>

I liked your analysis of Sempron better. ;-).

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2005 6:24:58 PM

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

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:28:29 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
<newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote:

>Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> scribed:
>
>>No no no! Centrino means that you can use WiFi at the top of Mount
>>Everest! Dontcha know?!? Geez.. If you've got Centrino than you can
>>use WiFi ANYWHERE! Just watch the commercials! :>
>
>Yeah, in the middle of a park with NOTHING around for hundreds of yards!
>
>That Intel, they're really good at (make up something)...

Marketing?

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2005 6:24:58 PM

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

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:46:01 -0500, Robert Myers
<rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:

>If I'm not mistaken, full Centrino is more expensive than
>Pentium-M+855 Chipset+OEM-supplied wireless. The OEM is buying the ad
>campaign, not the functionality.

The OEM is NOT buying the ad campaign at all, they're getting PAID for
the ad campaign. Intel provides BIG-$$$ for companies to advertise
their laptops as "Centrino Mobile Technology", complete with the Intel
symbol and badda-bing. If you just buy the Pentium-M + chipset but
use a different WiFi chip than you gotta foot the entire marketing
bill to advertise your products. Add in that Intel WiFi chip though
and call it Centrino and Intel will basically cover all of your
marketing costs.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2005 8:53:10 PM

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

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:24:58 -0500, Tony Hill wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:28:29 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
> <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote:
>
>>Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> scribed:
>>
>>>No no no! Centrino means that you can use WiFi at the top of Mount
>>>Everest! Dontcha know?!? Geez.. If you've got Centrino than you can
>>>use WiFi ANYWHERE! Just watch the commercials! :>
>>
>>Yeah, in the middle of a park with NOTHING around for hundreds of yards!
>>
>>That Intel, they're really good at (make up something)...
>
> Marketing?
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

I am still waiting for Intel or AMD to do something like the Vonage
commercials. you know "People do stupid things" then you insert a guy in a
blue Centrino shirt, or in a green AMD shirt, do something really stupid
with a computer. Or have a big pop up screen, telling the user to right
click, show the user pounding on the left mouse button. Oh don't forget
that catchy tune, that in itself is probably what makes the commercials so
funny. But we all know that who ever did that would probably have the
attorneys knocking on their doors with defamation law suites.

Gnu_Raiz
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2005 3:09:46 AM

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

Tony Hill wrote:
> No no no! Centrino means that you can use WiFi at the top of Mount
> Everest! Dontcha know?!? Geez.. If you've got Centrino than you can
> use WiFi ANYWHERE! Just watch the commercials! :>

I think I can recall seeing in fine print on those Intel commercials
that they were saying that there was WiFi at some basestation of
Everest. Of course that had little to do with the images they were
showing on the commercial itself, which really made it clear that these
climbers must've been 10,000 feet up already.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2005 3:11:54 AM

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

Tony Hill wrote:
>>Yeah, in the middle of a park with NOTHING around for hundreds of yards!
>>
>>That Intel, they're really good at (make up something)...
>
>
> Marketing?

While AMD's marketing department recently had to pull some radio ads
from Belgium or the Netherlands or somewhere like that, because they
were claiming that their NX-bit technology was a substitute for
anti-virus software. Seems Intel gets away with a few things which AMD
gets caught for.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2005 4:53:02 AM

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

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:46:01 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:12:32 -0500, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:11:24 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>>
>>>Brands are very, very expensive, but every marketer wants a
>>>recognizable brand, and whether a brand is "recognizable" or not may
>>>depend on how you ask the question. Look at enough notebooks and
>>>notebook ads with the Centrino logo, and the brand becomes
>>>recognizable, if only from the distinctive shape of the logo--that's
>>>why really good graphics designers make so much. To the prospective
>>>buyer, that logo becomes a feature they want to have, even if they
>>>don't know why (cf. Corinthian leather).
>>
>>Was (fine) Corinthian Leather really all that successful?
>
>Corinthian Leather was successful enough to get a writeup in the Wall
>Street Journal, and Chrysler stuck with the ad campaign through many
>millions of dollars. I think that campaign was well into the focus
>group era. Did it sell cars? Would I be spending time here if I
>_really_ knew the answer to questions like that? ;-).

Figures... all Chrysler had going for it by then was err, seats! Focus
group era? Did that correspond with what was known as the "pussification"
of American industry?

>>Most people
>>don't know what Centrino is anyway - it's generally perceived as meaning an
>>Intel CPU... with a possible assocation with long battery life.
>>
>
>But it doesn't matter. It's a feature. The feature, you argue, is
>poorly correlated in the minds of potential buyers with actual
>benefits, but that doesn't matter if it's a feature people want.
>
>If I'm not mistaken, full Centrino is more expensive than
>Pentium-M+855 Chipset+OEM-supplied wireless. The OEM is buying the ad
>campaign, not the functionality.

The pricing of non-Centrino Wi-Fi wasn't much different about a year ago...
though I don't bother to look beyond Thinkpads much. Currently, there's
very little competitive offerings that I see; IBM has a very few Thinkpads
with "IBM 11b/g Wireless", which may be Cisco parts(?), in their top end
systems but also in a couple of lower end systems. IOW if you wanted to
avoid Centrino now, it'd be kinda difficult but the price is not much
different, from what I see.

>>>To turn the question around: how much market clout do you think an AMD
>>>logo has?
>>
>>If you watch F1 or the Tour de France... maybe? How much clout does Lance
>>have in the U.S.?<shrug>
>
>Why would an American spend his time riding a bicycle in _France_?
>Real men don't ride bicycles, they don't wear shorts like that, they
>don't spend time in France or, if forced to do so, don't advertise it,
>and they don't use AMD processors.

Uh-huh - "real men" sit around drinking beer, watching steroid-induced
monsters in heavily padded clothing trying to beat each other to death?
They go to the gym 3 times a week but don't ask them to walk two blocks to
get there.:-)

> People who ride bicycles, wear
>shorts like that, spend time in France, and/or use AMD processors
>probably spend their spare time playing weird computer games.

Something about the shorts that I've missed?:-) Ever watch Paris-Roubaix?
Now these are the *real* hard men.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2005 10:21:45 AM

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

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:53:02 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:46:01 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>

<snip>

>
>>>>To turn the question around: how much market clout do you think an AMD
>>>>logo has?
>>>
>>>If you watch F1 or the Tour de France... maybe? How much clout does Lance
>>>have in the U.S.?<shrug>
>>
>>Why would an American spend his time riding a bicycle in _France_?
>>Real men don't ride bicycles, they don't wear shorts like that, they
>>don't spend time in France or, if forced to do so, don't advertise it,
>>and they don't use AMD processors.
>
>Uh-huh - "real men" sit around drinking beer, watching steroid-induced
>monsters in heavily padded clothing trying to beat each other to death?
>They go to the gym 3 times a week but don't ask them to walk two blocks to
>get there.:-)
>
>> People who ride bicycles, wear
>>shorts like that, spend time in France, and/or use AMD processors
>>probably spend their spare time playing weird computer games.
>
>Something about the shorts that I've missed?:-) Ever watch Paris-Roubaix?
>Now these are the *real* hard men.

For my own part, I'm fond of Proust. For whatever it's worth, though,
I think my attempted send-up of why Lance Armstrong isn't that
effective for selling outside AMD's core constituency
(anti-establishment gamers) reflects fairly well the level of
rationality at which people actually make these decisions, which is to
say that it isn't rational at all.

Or, oh well, there probably is some rationality there, but I wouldn't
claim to be smart enough to parse it. Intel's marketing is: buy what
you're familiar with and what you know will work; no expatriate
Americans on bicycles in France for that message. AMD's message is:
the same old, same old isn't always the best--(gasp!) American winning
(gasp!) the Tour de France is exactly on message. AMD really can't
build its brand in quite the same way as Intel...

And at some level, the really important buyers have to understand
that. AMD, for all its accomplishments, is still in the "prove it"
division. Lance Armstrong just the right image for that spot, I
guess; he has to have made believers of the French (other than those
who firmly believe his success is the result of illegal drugs).

But Lance Armstrong has ridden his last or next to last tour? DEC is
no more. IBM is still chugging along (although you may have to review
your choice of laptop).

RM
February 6, 2005 12:08:20 PM

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

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:09:46 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Tony Hill wrote:
>> No no no! Centrino means that you can use WiFi at the top of Mount
>> Everest! Dontcha know?!? Geez.. If you've got Centrino than you can
>> use WiFi ANYWHERE! Just watch the commercials! :>
>
> I think I can recall seeing in fine print on those Intel commercials
> that they were saying that there was WiFi at some basestation of
> Everest.

Wi Fi Internet Cafe Planned for Everest Base Camp:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=3897&mess...

> Of course that had little to do with the images they were
> showing on the commercial itself, which really made it clear that these
> climbers must've been 10,000 feet up already.

The Everest "base camp" is at 17,500ft. It looks like a nice place for a
vacation. http://www.vashonsd.wednet.edu/everest/dispatch6.htm --- NOT!

--
Keith
February 6, 2005 12:21:07 PM

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

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:53:02 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:46:01 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:12:32 -0500, George Macdonald
>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:11:24 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Brands are very, very expensive, but every marketer wants a
>>>>recognizable brand, and whether a brand is "recognizable" or not may
>>>>depend on how you ask the question. Look at enough notebooks and
>>>>notebook ads with the Centrino logo, and the brand becomes
>>>>recognizable, if only from the distinctive shape of the logo--that's
>>>>why really good graphics designers make so much. To the prospective
>>>>buyer, that logo becomes a feature they want to have, even if they
>>>>don't know why (cf. Corinthian leather).
>>>
>>>Was (fine) Corinthian Leather really all that successful?
>>
>>Corinthian Leather was successful enough to get a writeup in the Wall
>>Street Journal, and Chrysler stuck with the ad campaign through many
>>millions of dollars. I think that campaign was well into the focus
>>group era. Did it sell cars? Would I be spending time here if I
>>_really_ knew the answer to questions like that? ;-).
>
> Figures... all Chrysler had going for it by then was err, seats! Focus
> group era? Did that correspond with what was known as the "pussification"
> of American industry?

Did you drive a Chrysler of that era? A new name for the hyde of the
rare Nalga was by far the best thing they had going.

>>>Most people
>>>don't know what Centrino is anyway - it's generally perceived as
>>>meaning an Intel CPU... with a possible assocation with long battery
>>>life.
>>>
>>>
>>But it doesn't matter. It's a feature. The feature, you argue, is
>>poorly correlated in the minds of potential buyers with actual benefits,
>>but that doesn't matter if it's a feature people want.
>>
>>If I'm not mistaken, full Centrino is more expensive than Pentium-M+855
>>Chipset+OEM-supplied wireless. The OEM is buying the ad campaign, not
>>the functionality.
>
> The pricing of non-Centrino Wi-Fi wasn't much different about a year
> ago... though I don't bother to look beyond Thinkpads much. Currently,
> there's very little competitive offerings that I see; IBM has a very few
> Thinkpads with "IBM 11b/g Wireless", which may be Cisco parts(?),

The drivers for my IBM 11/a/b/g cardbus card have a name on them I've
never heard (and don't remember). I decided to pass on the R50 they were
trying to push on me, so I don't know what the hardware in there is/was.

> in
> their top end systems but also in a couple of lower end systems. IOW if
> you wanted to avoid Centrino now, it'd be kinda difficult but the price
> is not much different, from what I see.

The ThinkPads I've looked (a small slice of ones on sale, perhaps) at
weren't Centrinos. They were all Pentium-Ms.

>>>>To turn the question around: how much market clout do you think an AMD
>>>>logo has?
>>>
>>>If you watch F1 or the Tour de France... maybe? How much clout does
>>>Lance have in the U.S.?<shrug>
>>
>>Why would an American spend his time riding a bicycle in _France_? Real
>>men don't ride bicycles, they don't wear shorts like that, they don't
>>spend time in France or, if forced to do so, don't advertise it, and
>>they don't use AMD processors.
>
> Uh-huh - "real men" sit around drinking beer, watching steroid-induced
> monsters in heavily padded clothing trying to beat each other to death?
> They go to the gym 3 times a week but don't ask them to walk two blocks
> to get there.:-)

Speaking of which, I gotta stock the fridge for the festivities tonight.
What's Vegas have to say about a Harrison "wardrome malfunction"?

>> People who ride bicycles, wear
>>shorts like that, spend time in France, and/or use AMD processors
>>probably spend their spare time playing weird computer games.
>
> Something about the shorts that I've missed?:-) Ever watch
> Paris-Roubaix? Now these are the *real* hard men.

No, but if it's anything like Paris-Hilton, I can believe it. ;-)

--
Keith
February 6, 2005 9:39:06 PM

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

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote :

> Tony Hill wrote:
>>>Yeah, in the middle of a park with NOTHING around for hundreds of
>>>yards!
>>>
>>>That Intel, they're really good at (make up something)...
>>
>>
>> Marketing?
>
> While AMD's marketing department recently had to pull some radio
> ads from Belgium or the Netherlands or somewhere like that,
> because they were claiming that their NX-bit technology was a
> substitute for anti-virus software.

well, it was not made up, it was a LIE for clicking idiots. Something
along the lines of "now you can click anythink on that porn site, AMD
will protect you from viruses and spyware".



Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2005 10:46:10 PM

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

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 09:21:07 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:53:02 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>

>> Figures... all Chrysler had going for it by then was err, seats! Focus
>> group era? Did that correspond with what was known as the "pussification"
>> of American industry?
>
>Did you drive a Chrysler of that era? A new name for the hyde of the
>rare Nalga was by far the best thing they had going.

No I didn't drive any but I recall seeing the inside of a non-Montalban
(fine Corinthian....) model at a mall parking lot "show day" and marveling
at the fine detail of the Bordello look interior. Interesting that
Chrysler has revived the ~50 year-old "Hemi" name, meaning BFM (umm, big
motor), to tout its wares recently. Their "merger" with M-B is a fine
match for both.

>> The pricing of non-Centrino Wi-Fi wasn't much different about a year
>> ago... though I don't bother to look beyond Thinkpads much. Currently,
>> there's very little competitive offerings that I see; IBM has a very few
>> Thinkpads with "IBM 11b/g Wireless", which may be Cisco parts(?),
>
>The drivers for my IBM 11/a/b/g cardbus card have a name on them I've
>never heard (and don't remember). I decided to pass on the R50 they were
>trying to push on me, so I don't know what the hardware in there is/was.

From what I hear the R5xs are closer to the T4xs and Axx models in feel and
"quality" than they used to be but still not quite "there". As for
NIC/Wi-Fi, I remember now that IBM used to sell some with the Cisco name
but all non-Centrinos now seem to be just labelled as "IBM 11b/g" or no
name at the lower end. Apparently there aren't really many companies left
who actually produce NICs/Wi-Fi... D-Link is one of them.

>> in
>> their top end systems but also in a couple of lower end systems. IOW if
>> you wanted to avoid Centrino now, it'd be kinda difficult but the price
>> is not much different, from what I see.
>
>The ThinkPads I've looked (a small slice of ones on sale, perhaps) at
>weren't Centrinos. They were all Pentium-Ms.

I've mainly looked at T4xs - nice systems - and they are mostly Centrino.

>> Uh-huh - "real men" sit around drinking beer, watching steroid-induced
>> monsters in heavily padded clothing trying to beat each other to death?
>> They go to the gym 3 times a week but don't ask them to walk two blocks
>> to get there.:-)
>
>Speaking of which, I gotta stock the fridge for the festivities tonight.
>What's Vegas have to say about a Harrison "wardrome malfunction"?

Keith, Harrison was the 2nd dead one. McCartney was the dim one and is a
(pious vegan) old fart now into the bargain - I wouldn't expect anything
worth looking at there. OTOH the Philadelphia rabble will be present so
the producers had better be err, vigilant, about fan-flashers with the
latest in mammary (and other forbidden bits) jewelry.:-)

>>> People who ride bicycles, wear
>>>shorts like that, spend time in France, and/or use AMD processors
>>>probably spend their spare time playing weird computer games.
>>
>> Something about the shorts that I've missed?:-) Ever watch
>> Paris-Roubaix? Now these are the *real* hard men.
>
>No, but if it's anything like Paris-Hilton, I can believe it. ;-)

Tsk... tsk.:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2005 3:31:32 AM

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

RusH wrote:
> well, it was not made up, it was a LIE for clicking idiots. Something
> along the lines of "now you can click anythink on that porn site, AMD
> will protect you from viruses and spyware".

Yeah, I know, but still marketing rules were applied differently between
AMD and Intel.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2005 3:41:02 AM

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> No I didn't drive any but I recall seeing the inside of a non-Montalban
> (fine Corinthian....) model at a mall parking lot "show day" and marveling
> at the fine detail of the Bordello look interior. Interesting that
> Chrysler has revived the ~50 year-old "Hemi" name, meaning BFM (umm, big
> motor), to tout its wares recently. Their "merger" with M-B is a fine
> match for both.

The new Bentley-looking Chrysler 300H was recently tested against ...
gasp, a Bentley, in a car magazine. They started the article off talking
about the advantages of buying a fake Gucci ladies handbag in a back
alley somewhere. It says, "Gucci, made in Italy" on the outside, and it
says, "made in China" on the inside. :-)

The fake handbag is not fake in the sense that it is really a handbag,
and it holds everything that the real handbag will hold. And it's got
the added benefit that it only costs $20 vs. $2000 (or whatever the hell
a real Gucci goes for). So in a similar vein, they tested Bentley
against Bentley rip-off. And the rip-off was faster too (mated to a 425
HP engine)!

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2005 4:15:14 AM

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

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:11:54 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>>>Yeah, in the middle of a park with NOTHING around for hundreds of yards!
>>>
>>>That Intel, they're really good at (make up something)...
>>
>>
>> Marketing?
>
>While AMD's marketing department recently had to pull some radio ads
>from Belgium or the Netherlands or somewhere like that, because they
>were claiming that their NX-bit technology was a substitute for
>anti-virus software. Seems Intel gets away with a few things which AMD
>gets caught for.

The idea that the EU or any of its puppet govts would accuse others of
cheating or misleading is a supreme irony.:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2005 4:15:15 AM

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

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 07:21:45 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:53:02 -0500, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:46:01 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>>>>To turn the question around: how much market clout do you think an AMD
>>>>>logo has?
>>>>
>>>>If you watch F1 or the Tour de France... maybe? How much clout does Lance
>>>>have in the U.S.?<shrug>
>>>
>>>Why would an American spend his time riding a bicycle in _France_?
>>>Real men don't ride bicycles, they don't wear shorts like that, they
>>>don't spend time in France or, if forced to do so, don't advertise it,
>>>and they don't use AMD processors.
>>
>>Uh-huh - "real men" sit around drinking beer, watching steroid-induced
>>monsters in heavily padded clothing trying to beat each other to death?
>>They go to the gym 3 times a week but don't ask them to walk two blocks to
>>get there.:-)
>>
>>> People who ride bicycles, wear
>>>shorts like that, spend time in France, and/or use AMD processors
>>>probably spend their spare time playing weird computer games.
>>
>>Something about the shorts that I've missed?:-) Ever watch Paris-Roubaix?
>>Now these are the *real* hard men.
>
>For my own part, I'm fond of Proust. For whatever it's worth, though,
>I think my attempted send-up of why Lance Armstrong isn't that
>effective for selling outside AMD's core constituency
>(anti-establishment gamers) reflects fairly well the level of
>rationality at which people actually make these decisions, which is to
>say that it isn't rational at all.

Temps perdu??

>Or, oh well, there probably is some rationality there, but I wouldn't
>claim to be smart enough to parse it. Intel's marketing is: buy what
>you're familiar with and what you know will work; no expatriate
>Americans on bicycles in France for that message. AMD's message is:
>the same old, same old isn't always the best--(gasp!) American winning
>(gasp!) the Tour de France is exactly on message. AMD really can't
>build its brand in quite the same way as Intel...

Obviously Intel was unknown at one time and IBM gave them a leg up with the
licensing on MCA. They've done well to get the brand recognition they have
but everything gets old and there's always something new. Intel has
certainly stubbed their toe on several counts over recent years...
corporate senility?<shrug>

>And at some level, the really important buyers have to understand
>that. AMD, for all its accomplishments, is still in the "prove it"
>division. Lance Armstrong just the right image for that spot, I
>guess; he has to have made believers of the French (other than those
>who firmly believe his success is the result of illegal drugs).

In the end I always hope that technology counts. A tough steak with
"sizzle" is still tough and does not bring "repeats".

>But Lance Armstrong has ridden his last or next to last tour? DEC is
>no more. IBM is still chugging along (although you may have to review
>your choice of laptop).

Intel is the one chugging right now from my POV - a complete stall could be
imminent. As for LA, he is said to be contracted, to his new sponsor, for
one more Tour which he almost certainly will not win; he wants to do some
of the one-day classics, the lack of which prevents him from sitting in the
top echelon with the likes of Merckx... but the Eddie did them all in the
same years.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2005 2:06:00 PM

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

Robert Myers wrote:

>Corinthian Leather was successful enough to get a writeup in the Wall
>Street Journal, and Chrysler stuck with the ad campaign through many
>millions of dollars. I think that campaign was well into the focus
>group era. Did it sell cars? Would I be spending time here if I
>_really_ knew the answer to questions like that? ;-).

I still remember those ads, and Corinthian leather was only one of the
awesome features that were touted. Others were "AM/FM cassette radio"
(Wow! Those are a whole $20 at Best Buy.) and, my personal favorite,
"optional wire wheel covers" (Wow! I can pay extra and get wire
wheel covers? And I can't do that on other cars?)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2005 9:07:47 PM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 01:15:15 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 07:21:45 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>

<snip>

>>
>>For my own part, I'm fond of Proust. For whatever it's worth, though,
>>I think my attempted send-up of why Lance Armstrong isn't that
>>effective for selling outside AMD's core constituency
>>(anti-establishment gamers) reflects fairly well the level of
>>rationality at which people actually make these decisions, which is to
>>say that it isn't rational at all.
>
>Temps perdu??
>
Reading Proust or playing weird computer games? A little bit of
Proust goes a long way, but if you're completely unaware of what A la
Recherche is on about, you're still living in the nineteenth century.
Or perhaps earlier. I had an English professor accuse me of having my
head stuck in the eighteenth century. As a friend pointed out, there
are worse places to have your consciousness stuck. As it is, though,
I don't think Proust was completely lost on me.

This exchange has pushed me back into the "Does it really matter?"
mode. Intel's real marketing triumph has been to change the subject,
and, as usual, I'm completely bought in. The processors themselves
aren't going to get that much faster. What matters is how they are
connected. The Centrino campaign is one front in that offensive.

I never did like AMD? I think Opteron is great. I just don't think
it's the future.

>>Or, oh well, there probably is some rationality there, but I wouldn't
>>claim to be smart enough to parse it. Intel's marketing is: buy what
>>you're familiar with and what you know will work; no expatriate
>>Americans on bicycles in France for that message. AMD's message is:
>>the same old, same old isn't always the best--(gasp!) American winning
>>(gasp!) the Tour de France is exactly on message. AMD really can't
>>build its brand in quite the same way as Intel...
>
>Obviously Intel was unknown at one time and IBM gave them a leg up with the
>licensing on MCA. They've done well to get the brand recognition they have
>but everything gets old and there's always something new. Intel has
>certainly stubbed their toe on several counts over recent years...
>corporate senility?<shrug>
>
Maybe.

>>And at some level, the really important buyers have to understand
>>that. AMD, for all its accomplishments, is still in the "prove it"
>>division. Lance Armstrong just the right image for that spot, I
>>guess; he has to have made believers of the French (other than those
>>who firmly believe his success is the result of illegal drugs).
>
>In the end I always hope that technology counts. A tough steak with
>"sizzle" is still tough and does not bring "repeats".
>
The sizzle is in the interconnect.

>>But Lance Armstrong has ridden his last or next to last tour? DEC is
>>no more. IBM is still chugging along (although you may have to review
>>your choice of laptop).
>
>Intel is the one chugging right now from my POV - a complete stall could be
>imminent. <snip>

Anything is possible. The whole industry has lost its sizzle. I'm
not sure I understand why. The potential of the internet is far from
tapped out. About half of all venture capital money in the U.S. still
goes into software startups. There are so many things computers
should be good at that they're still not up to. Intel won't be part
of whatever action there is? I really doubt it.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2005 10:42:46 PM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:07:47 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 01:15:15 -0500, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 07:21:45 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>>
>>>For my own part, I'm fond of Proust. For whatever it's worth, though,
>>>I think my attempted send-up of why Lance Armstrong isn't that
>>>effective for selling outside AMD's core constituency
>>>(anti-establishment gamers) reflects fairly well the level of
>>>rationality at which people actually make these decisions, which is to
>>>say that it isn't rational at all.
>>
>>Temps perdu??
>>
>Reading Proust or playing weird computer games? A little bit of
>Proust goes a long way, but if you're completely unaware of what A la
>Recherche is on about, you're still living in the nineteenth century.
>Or perhaps earlier. I had an English professor accuse me of having my
>head stuck in the eighteenth century. As a friend pointed out, there
>are worse places to have your consciousness stuck. As it is, though,
>I don't think Proust was completely lost on me.
>
>This exchange has pushed me back into the "Does it really matter?"
>mode. Intel's real marketing triumph has been to change the subject,
>and, as usual, I'm completely bought in. The processors themselves
>aren't going to get that much faster. What matters is how they are
>connected. The Centrino campaign is one front in that offensive.

Correction!: Intel processors are not going to go much faster -- SOI
unnecessary<ptui> -- until they learn to follow when needs *dictate*.
EM64T *might* be a sign there, no matter how difficult in the gullet, but
their absurd claims that AMD "used Intel technology" to develop AMD64 are
somewhat of a contradiction there. AMD, and IBM (+Sony/Toshiba) for that
matter, have a few MHz to gain yet and Intel still doesn't have EM64T for
their Pentium-M series; I hope they haven't left it to the skunk-works
again.

>I never did like AMD? I think Opteron is great. I just don't think
>it's the future.

I don't see what's to like or not - both corps make processors which are
err, likeable or otherwise. I *used* to like Intel's processors and I
*used* to like their corporate "attitude", especially to end users.
Arrogance put paid to that a while back. BTW did you notice that Barrett
and Otellini dumped $12M and $3M respectively of shares last month?
Otellini lacks self-confidence?... and Barrett agrees?... or what?

Like I said, nothing's forever - Opteron will do as "great" for the
foreseeable future until the next thing comes along. I err, like it and it
sure as hell beats what Intel is doing in the field. It's funny how the
"analysts" miss the real story here: when Intel had to resort to dumping
its flash parts to leave AMD short of overall revenue, they saw it as a
sign of AMD's weakness.

>>>And at some level, the really important buyers have to understand
>>>that. AMD, for all its accomplishments, is still in the "prove it"
>>>division. Lance Armstrong just the right image for that spot, I
>>>guess; he has to have made believers of the French (other than those
>>>who firmly believe his success is the result of illegal drugs).
>>
>>In the end I always hope that technology counts. A tough steak with
>>"sizzle" is still tough and does not bring "repeats".
>>
>The sizzle is in the interconnect.

For Centrino yes but it's all a bit too vague as a competitive advantage to
even me... never mind the average buyer. Who'd notice the difference in
the "interconnect" if the Wi-Fi was a D-Link or Cisco part? Personally,
I've had trouble with Intel's wired part of the NIC on auto-negotiation -
given a choice, I'd choose something which works.

>>>But Lance Armstrong has ridden his last or next to last tour? DEC is
>>>no more. IBM is still chugging along (although you may have to review
>>>your choice of laptop).
>>
>>Intel is the one chugging right now from my POV - a complete stall could be
>>imminent. <snip>
>
>Anything is possible. The whole industry has lost its sizzle. I'm
>not sure I understand why. The potential of the internet is far from
>tapped out. About half of all venture capital money in the U.S. still
>goes into software startups. There are so many things computers
>should be good at that they're still not up to. Intel won't be part
>of whatever action there is? I really doubt it.

Competition is good for us mere end users.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
February 8, 2005 12:31:32 AM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:31:32 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> RusH wrote:
>> well, it was not made up, it was a LIE for clicking idiots. Something
>> along the lines of "now you can click anythink on that porn site, AMD
>> will protect you from viruses and spyware".
>
> Yeah, I know, but still marketing rules were applied differently between
> AMD and Intel.

Intel was smart enough to use the "experience" adjective. That's
subjective. Protecting you from virii is objectively false. If AMD had
said that virii would be harder to catch, they'd have a case.

--
Keith
February 8, 2005 12:41:19 AM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:42:46 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:07:47 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> wrote:

> I don't see what's to like or not - both corps make processors which are
> err, likeable or otherwise. I *used* to like Intel's processors and I
> *used* to like their corporate "attitude", especially to end users.
> Arrogance put paid to that a while back. BTW did you notice that Barrett
> and Otellini dumped $12M and $3M respectively of shares last month?
> Otellini lacks self-confidence?... and Barrett agrees?... or what?

Ohh, I hadn't seen that! Perhaps it's time to buy *more* AMD.

> Like I said, nothing's forever - Opteron will do as "great" for the
> foreseeable future until the next thing comes along. I err, like it and it
> sure as hell beats what Intel is doing in the field. It's funny how the
> "analysts" miss the real story here: when Intel had to resort to dumping
> its flash parts to leave AMD short of overall revenue, they saw it as a
> sign of AMD's weakness.

Did you see the article where they don't believe Intel's processor
position either? Some are saying they've scrapped mucho product to be
inventory short. ...though those reports have been denied. It seems all
is not well in the kingdom.

<snip>

>>The sizzle is in the interconnect.
>
> For Centrino yes but it's all a bit too vague as a competitive advantage
> to even me... never mind the average buyer. Who'd notice the difference
> in the "interconnect" if the Wi-Fi was a D-Link or Cisco part?
> Personally, I've had trouble with Intel's wired part of the NIC on
> auto-negotiation - given a choice, I'd choose something which works.

The issue is whether they know what a "Centrino" is. The customer really
doesn't care. Hell, they're still buying Celerons. My bet is that they
don't know the difference. "Celeron" good! "Centrino" more expensive!


>>Anything is possible. The whole industry has lost its sizzle. I'm not
>>sure I understand why. The potential of the internet is far from tapped
>>out. About half of all venture capital money in the U.S. still goes
>>into software startups. There are so many things computers should be
>>good at that they're still not up to. Intel won't be part of whatever
>>action there is? I really doubt it.
>
> Competition is good for us mere end users.

Not when you're a Cray-1 bigot. ;-)

--
Keith
February 8, 2005 1:07:05 AM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:41:02 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> George Macdonald wrote:
>> No I didn't drive any but I recall seeing the inside of a non-Montalban
>> (fine Corinthian....) model at a mall parking lot "show day" and marveling
>> at the fine detail of the Bordello look interior. Interesting that
>> Chrysler has revived the ~50 year-old "Hemi" name, meaning BFM (umm, big
>> motor), to tout its wares recently. Their "merger" with M-B is a fine
>> match for both.

Both can run down the toilet, AFAIC.

> The new Bentley-looking Chrysler 300H was recently tested against ...
> gasp, a Bentley, in a car magazine. They started the article off talking
> about the advantages of buying a fake Gucci ladies handbag in a back
> alley somewhere. It says, "Gucci, made in Italy" on the outside, and it
> says, "made in China" on the inside. :-)

A friend has one of these. ...at least I think it's a Gucci (the
rip-off part I know). It's *UUUGGGLYYY*. What do I know. Hell, want a
Cartier or Rolex? I'll send you my spam.

> The fake handbag is not fake in the sense that it is really a handbag,
> and it holds everything that the real handbag will hold. And it's got
> the added benefit that it only costs $20 vs. $2000 (or whatever the hell
> a real Gucci goes for). So in a similar vein, they tested Bentley
> against Bentley rip-off. And the rip-off was faster too (mated to a 425
> HP engine)!

The difference is that I wouldn't pay $20 for the Chrysler. ...and I had
'em for close to 20 years.

--
Keith
February 8, 2005 1:08:34 AM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:06:00 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>
>>Corinthian Leather was successful enough to get a writeup in the Wall
>>Street Journal, and Chrysler stuck with the ad campaign through many
>>millions of dollars. I think that campaign was well into the focus
>>group era. Did it sell cars? Would I be spending time here if I
>>_really_ knew the answer to questions like that? ;-).
>
> I still remember those ads, and Corinthian leather was only one of the
> awesome features that were touted. Others were "AM/FM cassette radio"
> (Wow! Those are a whole $20 at Best Buy.) and, my personal favorite,
> "optional wire wheel covers" (Wow! I can pay extra and get wire
> wheel covers? And I can't do that on other cars?)

What do you pay for an auto radio today? Just because you can buy a
"transistor" radio for $20 at K-Mart doesn't mean the radio in the car is
the same thing.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 8, 2005 10:25:05 AM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:41:19 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:42:46 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:07:47 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> I don't see what's to like or not - both corps make processors which are
>> err, likeable or otherwise. I *used* to like Intel's processors and I
>> *used* to like their corporate "attitude", especially to end users.
>> Arrogance put paid to that a while back. BTW did you notice that Barrett
>> and Otellini dumped $12M and $3M respectively of shares last month?
>> Otellini lacks self-confidence?... and Barrett agrees?... or what?
>
>Ohh, I hadn't seen that! Perhaps it's time to buy *more* AMD.

A closer look at the bigger picture here at
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=INTC indicates it may just be keeping the
same holding while they exercise fresh options... so maybe not as sinister
as I thought.

>> Like I said, nothing's forever - Opteron will do as "great" for the
>> foreseeable future until the next thing comes along. I err, like it and it
>> sure as hell beats what Intel is doing in the field. It's funny how the
>> "analysts" miss the real story here: when Intel had to resort to dumping
>> its flash parts to leave AMD short of overall revenue, they saw it as a
>> sign of AMD's weakness.
>
>Did you see the article where they don't believe Intel's processor
>position either? Some are saying they've scrapped mucho product to be
>inventory short. ...though those reports have been denied. It seems all
>is not well in the kingdom.

What?... ya mean off the books?... or hidden in some other "transactions"?

>>>The sizzle is in the interconnect.
>>
>> For Centrino yes but it's all a bit too vague as a competitive advantage
>> to even me... never mind the average buyer. Who'd notice the difference
>> in the "interconnect" if the Wi-Fi was a D-Link or Cisco part?
>> Personally, I've had trouble with Intel's wired part of the NIC on
>> auto-negotiation - given a choice, I'd choose something which works.
>
>The issue is whether they know what a "Centrino" is. The customer really
>doesn't care. Hell, they're still buying Celerons. My bet is that they
>don't know the difference. "Celeron" good! "Centrino" more expensive!

Yeah I know what you mean. I have people, some at the office, come to me
asking what to buy - I tell them and they all immediately turn around and
buy Dell - "such a great deal".<shrug>

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 8, 2005 10:25:06 AM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:03:00 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:46:10 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 09:21:07 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:53:02 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> Figures... all Chrysler had going for it by then was err, seats! Focus
>>>> group era? Did that correspond with what was known as the "pussification"
>>>> of American industry?
>>>
>>>Did you drive a Chrysler of that era? A new name for the hyde of the
>>>rare Nalga was by far the best thing they had going.
>>
>> No I didn't drive any but I recall seeing the inside of a non-Montalban
>> (fine Corinthian....) model at a mall parking lot "show day" and marveling
>> at the fine detail of the Bordello look interior.
>
>You'er being too kind. French whore (is that redundant?), is more like
>it.

Err, I can't go there - my wife is French... though I admit we've butted
umm, opinions, on Chirac, his henchmen and "French diplomacy" recently.

>I'm sure you never saw the line of cars out back with no trannies in 'em.
>Those were customer's cars. It often took three months to get a tranny.
>They couldn't *REBUILD* them fast enough. That's why Chrysler just about
>went under.

I recall renting a Dodge Dart back around 1980 - whined like an old
streetcar.

>> Interesting that Chrysler has revived the ~50 year-old "Hemi" name, meaning BFM (umm, big
>> motor), to tout its wares recently. Their "merger" with M-B is a fine
>> match for both.
>
>It's a "little" more than a name for a BFE. It is a "techie" thing too.

Huh?? Hemispherical head/combustion chambers were a tech thing ~1930.

>> From what I hear the R5xs are closer to the T4xs and Axx models in feel
>> and "quality" than they used to be but still not quite "there".
>
>I was *not* about to give up my 1600x1200 display for a 1024x768. They
>couldn't give me the exact model number, so I checked around. Yech! No
>thanks! I'll keep my A21p another few years (or less ;-).

I hear the Flexview IPS screens are just beautiful... but expensive.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 8, 2005 11:12:23 AM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:42:46 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:07:47 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>

<snip>

>>
>>This exchange has pushed me back into the "Does it really matter?"
>>mode. Intel's real marketing triumph has been to change the subject,
>>and, as usual, I'm completely bought in. The processors themselves
>>aren't going to get that much faster. What matters is how they are
>>connected. The Centrino campaign is one front in that offensive.
>
>Correction!: Intel processors are not going to go much faster -- SOI
>unnecessary<ptui> -- until they learn to follow when needs *dictate*.
>EM64T *might* be a sign there, no matter how difficult in the gullet, but
>their absurd claims that AMD "used Intel technology" to develop AMD64 are
>somewhat of a contradiction there. AMD, and IBM (+Sony/Toshiba) for that
>matter, have a few MHz to gain yet and Intel still doesn't have EM64T for
>their Pentium-M series; I hope they haven't left it to the skunk-works
>again.
>

I made an intense effort to understand what was going on with process
technology when all the surprises came down at 90nm, but since then
I've lost track of process technology. If Intel really has lost the
playbook, that would be news, but I don't really believe it.

As to performance, which I've also lost track of, Power5 and Itanium
seem to have run away from the pack on CFP2000. That's the horse race
that Intel wants. As to the pack, AMD is in the hunt, but only just.

CFP2000 not a realistic measure of real-world performance? Probably
not, but then what is, other than your own code? Yes, it is easier to
write naive code for AMD processors than it is to write naive code for
NetBurst or for Itanium.

<snip>

>>
>>Anything is possible. The whole industry has lost its sizzle. I'm
>>not sure I understand why. The potential of the internet is far from
>>tapped out. About half of all venture capital money in the U.S. still
>>goes into software startups. There are so many things computers
>>should be good at that they're still not up to. Intel won't be part
>>of whatever action there is? I really doubt it.
>
>Competition is good for us mere end users.

Well of course it is.

There are predictions floating around now that world oil production
may have peaked or may be about to peak. Depends on who you ask. If
you look at the methodology of both sides of the argument, it's pure
voodoo. The petroleum geologists fit curves. The econometrics guys
use computer models (is your soul stained with these kinds of sins,
George?) that either have obvious problems or are so complicated that
no one understands them. It's a battle over prejudices. The
_results_ are quoted widely in the press, because the press has to
fill all those column inches with something.

I mention "peak oil" here because off-topic rambling is my style, and
because it reminds me a bit of the microprocessor business, which
seems to have run out of steam. Past predictions of the future of
world oil production and energy usage have been so far off the mark as
to be useless. At some point, the world will switch from oil to
something else. Nobody knows when, to what, or at what price. We are
similarly ignorant of the future of the microprocessor business.

Small differences that don't seem to point anywhere don't seem very
interesting to me. The switch to SOC designs interests me. The
switch to stream processors interests me. A better interconnect
interests me. All those things interest me because they have the
potential to change the rules.

The problem with microprocessors right now isn't that they can't be
made to go faster. The problem is that the application space that can
be accessed with a conventional single-processor architecture seems to
have been pretty thoroughly explored. Just as three-D seismography
quietly changed the rules in petroleum exploration, though, new
technology can change the rules for microprocessors. I don't think
that AMD taking aim at the Centrino brand is movement in that
direction, though.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 8, 2005 11:48:12 AM

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:41:19 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

<snip>

>
>Not when you're a Cray-1 bigot. ;-)

Not a Cray bigot, Keith, a bandwidth bigot. A company with which you
have some familiarity is peddling a "super"computer with a bisection
bandwidth in the range of a few dozen millibytes per flop or less.
I'll be fascinated to see if the oil companies, indeed, if any genuine
economic buyer actually purchases one. IBM has announced a paper on
using that machine to do FFT's, a calculation that is driven by
bisection bandwidth. Last I could discover, it was still "in
preparation."

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 8, 2005 11:55:36 AM

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

In article <urbh019luretps8fksh48rqscvoqeteqgu@4ax.com>, fammacd=!
SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:41:19 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

> >> Like I said, nothing's forever - Opteron will do as "great" for the
> >> foreseeable future until the next thing comes along. I err, like it and it
> >> sure as hell beats what Intel is doing in the field. It's funny how the
> >> "analysts" miss the real story here: when Intel had to resort to dumping
> >> its flash parts to leave AMD short of overall revenue, they saw it as a
> >> sign of AMD's weakness.
> >
> >Did you see the article where they don't believe Intel's processor
> >position either? Some are saying they've scrapped mucho product to be
> >inventory short. ...though those reports have been denied. It seems all
> >is not well in the kingdom.
>
> What?... ya mean off the books?... or hidden in some other "transactions"?

My wife sent this to me a few weeks ago. You tell me. See in
particular: "Intel's inventory enigma".

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P102178.asp

> >>>The sizzle is in the interconnect.
> >>
> >> For Centrino yes but it's all a bit too vague as a competitive advantage
> >> to even me... never mind the average buyer. Who'd notice the difference
> >> in the "interconnect" if the Wi-Fi was a D-Link or Cisco part?
> >> Personally, I've had trouble with Intel's wired part of the NIC on
> >> auto-negotiation - given a choice, I'd choose something which works.
> >
> >The issue is whether they know what a "Centrino" is. The customer really
> >doesn't care. Hell, they're still buying Celerons. My bet is that they
> >don't know the difference. "Celeron" good! "Centrino" more expensive!
>
> Yeah I know what you mean. I have people, some at the office, come to me
> asking what to buy - I tell them and they all immediately turn around and
> buy Dell - "such a great deal".<shrug>

There's a lot of that going around.

--
Keith
February 9, 2005 1:13:58 AM

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

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:48:12 -0500, Robert Myers wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:41:19 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>Not when you're a Cray-1 bigot. ;-)
>
> Not a Cray bigot, Keith, a bandwidth bigot.

1) No, you're a streaming processsor (a.k.a. Cray 1) bigot.

2) See smiley.

> A company with which you have some familiarity

You've figured that part out anyway. ;-)

> is peddling a "super"computer with a bisection
> bandwidth in the range of a few dozen millibytes per flop or less.
> I'll be fascinated to see if the oil companies, indeed, if any genuine
> economic buyer actually purchases one. IBM has announced a paper on
> using that machine to do FFT's, a calculation that is driven by
> bisection bandwidth. Last I could discover, it was still "in
> preparation."

If you have the money to spend, I'm sure you too can find someone willing
to accept it and give you what you dream of. Frankly, money talks and
science begs.

--
Keith
February 9, 2005 1:26:35 AM

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

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 07:25:06 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:03:00 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:46:10 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 09:21:07 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:53:02 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Figures... all Chrysler had going for it by then was err, seats! Focus
>>>>> group era? Did that correspond with what was known as the "pussification"
>>>>> of American industry?
>>>>
>>>>Did you drive a Chrysler of that era? A new name for the hyde of the
>>>>rare Nalga was by far the best thing they had going.
>>>
>>> No I didn't drive any but I recall seeing the inside of a non-Montalban
>>> (fine Corinthian....) model at a mall parking lot "show day" and marveling
>>> at the fine detail of the Bordello look interior.
>>
>>You'er being too kind. French whore (is that redundant?), is more like
>>it.
>
> Err, I can't go there - my wife is French...

Nothing personal, I assure you.

> though I admit we've butted umm, opinions, on Chirac, his henchmen
> and "French diplomacy" recently.

....but I wouldn't lift a finger if France was run-over by the Germans,
once again.

>>I'm sure you never saw the line of cars out back with no trannies in
>>'em. Those were customer's cars. It often took three months to get a
>>tranny. They couldn't *REBUILD* them fast enough. That's why Chrysler
>>just about went under.
>
> I recall renting a Dodge Dart back around 1980 - whined like an old
> streetcar.

Your wife would too if she had to walk home. The things were just about
as bad as my '70 Gremlin (*the* most appropriately named car in history).
Note that Chrysler bought AMC.

>>> Interesting that Chrysler has revived the ~50 year-old "Hemi" name,
>>> meaning BFM (umm, big motor), to tout its wares recently. Their
>>> "merger" with M-B is a fine match for both.
>>
>>It's a "little" more than a name for a BFE. It is a "techie" thing too.
>
> Huh?? Hemispherical head/combustion chambers were a tech thing ~1930.

I didn't say it was in any way *new*. "Hemi" is a little more than
BFE though. Hell I've seen flat-head BFE's. ...doesn't make flat-head ==
BFE either.

>>> From what I hear the R5xs are closer to the T4xs and Axx models in
>>> feel and "quality" than they used to be but still not quite "there".
>>
>>I was *not* about to give up my 1600x1200 display for a 1024x768. They
>>couldn't give me the exact model number, so I checked around. Yech! No
>>thanks! I'll keep my A21p another few years (or less ;-).
>
> I hear the Flexview IPS screens are just beautiful... but expensive.

Haven't seen one. But they're not about to issue "expensive" to those
who's title doesn't start with an 'ex'. Indeed the only 'ex' title I'll
ever see has a hyphen after the 'x'.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2005 1:45:53 AM

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

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:13:58 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:48:12 -0500, Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:41:19 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>Not when you're a Cray-1 bigot. ;-)
>>
>> Not a Cray bigot, Keith, a bandwidth bigot.
>
>1) No, you're a streaming processsor (a.k.a. Cray 1) bigot.
>
>2) See smiley.
>

Oh, I didn't take offense, and I certainly didn't intend to give any.

Bandwidth and streaming processors kind of go together. It's a puzzle
as to how some of these new stream processors can possibly stay fed.
There's a recent comp.arch post to the subject. My eyes are already
jittery from a day in front of a monitor, so I don't want to go look
it up.

In any case: Cray, vector processors, itanium, rambus, bandwidth,
bandwidth, bandwidth. It's all of a piece. How did itanium get in
there? It can act pretty much like a stream processor with software
pipelining.

>> A company with which you have some familiarity
>
>You've figured that part out anyway. ;-)
>
>> is peddling a "super"computer with a bisection
>> bandwidth in the range of a few dozen millibytes per flop or less.
>> I'll be fascinated to see if the oil companies, indeed, if any genuine
>> economic buyer actually purchases one. IBM has announced a paper on
>> using that machine to do FFT's, a calculation that is driven by
>> bisection bandwidth. Last I could discover, it was still "in
>> preparation."
>
>If you have the money to spend, I'm sure you too can find someone willing
>to accept it and give you what you dream of. Frankly, money talks and
>science begs.

Oh, science is doing just fine these days. Aside from the oil
companies, I want to see if a company doing, say, drug discovery buys
one.

There is an interesting post on realworldtech by someone who authors
things like chess-playing software about the importance of having true
random access to memory for things like search (which is what much of
AI is coming down to). He also mentions the FFT. You can dismiss it
as my private obsession, if you like, but I prefer to think of it as a
really strong intuition as to what computing is really all about. Or,
rather, a strong intuition as to what a real measure of capability is.

You are absolutely right: the guy with the checkbook writes the order.
If the guy with the checkbook wants to keep doing what was already
done twenty years ago, only just more of it, there is not much I can
do about it.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2005 11:10:04 AM

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

keith wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:06:00 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>
>> I still remember those ads, and Corinthian leather was only one of the
>> awesome features that were touted. Others were "AM/FM cassette radio"
>> (Wow! Those are a whole $20 at Best Buy.) and, my personal favorite,
>> "optional wire wheel covers" (Wow! I can pay extra and get wire
>> wheel covers? And I can't do that on other cars?)
>
>What do you pay for an auto radio today? Just because you can buy a
>"transistor" radio for $20 at K-Mart doesn't mean the radio in the car is
>the same thing.

Yeah, the $20 K-Mart radio was probably better. I'm only being
slightly facetious when I say that.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2005 11:21:39 AM

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

On Tve, 08 Feb 2005 22:26:35 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Tve, 08 Feb 2005 07:25:06 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

>> thovgh I admit we've bvtted vmm, opinions, on Chirac, his henchmen
>> and "French diplomacy" recently.
>
>...bvt I wovldn't lift a finger if France was rvn-over by the Germans,
>once again.

Most of Evrope is err, overrrvn by Germans now... in a slightly different
way of covrse bvt the effect is similar: they bvy vp companies that are
going throvgh a weak spell, which have something they want, e.g. Bentley,
Rolls Royce et.al. and move prodvction to the err, Fatherland. Mvch of
this is against Evro-rvles now of covrse, e.g. the Seimens division
transformation to Infineon and "move" from U.K. to Germany bvt apparently
there are "ways". Now the French car companies, after a period of
reasonable svccess, are showing signs of flagging a bit and I'm jvst
waiting for VW to pvt a move on Pevgeot or Renavlt... talk abovt pvtting
the cat among the pigeons.... Sacre Blev!!:-)

>>>> Interesting that Chrysler has revived the ~50 year-old "Hemi" name,
>>>> meaning BFM (vmm, big motor), to tovt its wares recently. Their
>>>> "merger" with M-B is a fine match for both.
>>>
>>>It's a "little" more than a name for a BFE. It is a "techie" thing too.
>>
>> Hvh?? Hemispherical head/combvstion chambers were a tech thing ~1930.
>
>I didn't say it was in any way *new*. "Hemi" is a little more than
>BFE thovgh. Hell I've seen flat-head BFE's. ...doesn't make flat-head ==
>BFE either.

OK there may be something to it in Detroit - I know that the engineers
there vsed to despair when accovntants and/or vnions wovld specify that a
wedge chamber wovld be the most err, "effective", to save a covpla bvcks or
lighten the "work". Taking a global view thovgh, to make a fvss abovt
"bringing back the Hemi", all seems a bit feeble. - I mean everybody
*knows* that's how yov do it.

>>>> From what I hear the R5xs are closer to the T4xs and Axx models in
>>>> feel and "qvality" than they vsed to be bvt still not qvite "there".
>>>
>>>I was *not* abovt to give vp my 1600x1200 display for a 1024x768. They
>>>covldn't give me the exact model nvmber, so I checked arovnd. Yech! No
>>>thanks! I'll keep my A21p another few years (or less ;-).
>>
>> I hear the Flexview IPS screens are jvst beavtifvl... bvt expensive.
>
>Haven't seen one. Bvt they're not abovt to issve "expensive" to those
>who's title doesn't start with an 'ex'. Indeed the only 'ex' title I'll
>ever see has a hyphen after the 'x'.

Their view of top-down thinking?:-)

BTW, completely OT here bvt if yov haven't come across
http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/ yet it's well worth a visit, since it's
being wovnd vp and has some hair-raising stvff on GW, Oil-for-Food and yes,
tsvnami relief... mvch of it straight from first-hand witness. I only
fovnd it recently so if yov're already in the know......

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2005 11:21:39 AM

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

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:12:23 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:42:46 -0500, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:07:47 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>>
>>>This exchange has pushed me back into the "Does it really matter?"
>>>mode. Intel's real marketing triumph has been to change the subject,
>>>and, as usual, I'm completely bought in. The processors themselves
>>>aren't going to get that much faster. What matters is how they are
>>>connected. The Centrino campaign is one front in that offensive.
>>
>>Correction!: Intel processors are not going to go much faster -- SOI
>>unnecessary<ptui> -- until they learn to follow when needs *dictate*.
>>EM64T *might* be a sign there, no matter how difficult in the gullet, but
>>their absurd claims that AMD "used Intel technology" to develop AMD64 are
>>somewhat of a contradiction there. AMD, and IBM (+Sony/Toshiba) for that
>>matter, have a few MHz to gain yet and Intel still doesn't have EM64T for
>>their Pentium-M series; I hope they haven't left it to the skunk-works
>>again.

Oh I should have said Intel P4 processors are not going to go much faster
above... which further highlights the lack of EM64T for Pentium-M.

>I made an intense effort to understand what was going on with process
>technology when all the surprises came down at 90nm, but since then
>I've lost track of process technology. If Intel really has lost the
>playbook, that would be news, but I don't really believe it.

What's going on with process tech does not really have to be understood at
the detail level to see the picture. IBM chief technologists, among
others, have told us of the "end of scaling" - Intel has demonstrated the
effect with 90nm P4. We know, as Keith has said right here, that the two
critical issues involved are power density and leakage. OTOH nobody is
talking of abandoning 65nm and lower, though they do talk of increasing
difficulty.

One of the results is dual or twin core CPUs, in order to be able to offer
continuing levels of performance improvement. Intel is presenting
something this week on new power management involving 64 levels of control,
even for the next Itanium.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Intel has "lost the playbook" but their
ego seems to be getting in the way when technology sharing is the way the
rest of the industry is moving.

>As to performance, which I've also lost track of, Power5 and Itanium
>seem to have run away from the pack on CFP2000. That's the horse race
>that Intel wants. As to the pack, AMD is in the hunt, but only just.

Really? I'm baffled as to why that's what Intel wants.

>CFP2000 not a realistic measure of real-world performance? Probably
>not, but then what is, other than your own code? Yes, it is easier to
>write naive code for AMD processors than it is to write naive code for
>NetBurst or for Itanium.

Horses for courses!

>>>Anything is possible. The whole industry has lost its sizzle. I'm
>>>not sure I understand why. The potential of the internet is far from
>>>tapped out. About half of all venture capital money in the U.S. still
>>>goes into software startups. There are so many things computers
>>>should be good at that they're still not up to. Intel won't be part
>>>of whatever action there is? I really doubt it.
>>
>>Competition is good for us mere end users.
>
>Well of course it is.
>
>There are predictions floating around now that world oil production
>may have peaked or may be about to peak. Depends on who you ask. If
>you look at the methodology of both sides of the argument, it's pure
>voodoo. The petroleum geologists fit curves. The econometrics guys
>use computer models (is your soul stained with these kinds of sins,
>George?) that either have obvious problems or are so complicated that
>no one understands them. It's a battle over prejudices. The
>_results_ are quoted widely in the press, because the press has to
>fill all those column inches with something.

"Peak oil" is a political club of the GW industry - nothing more nor less.
The media laps it up of course. As for my soul, it's much too naive to be
stained.:-)

>I mention "peak oil" here because off-topic rambling is my style, and
>because it reminds me a bit of the microprocessor business, which
>seems to have run out of steam. Past predictions of the future of
>world oil production and energy usage have been so far off the mark as
>to be useless. At some point, the world will switch from oil to
>something else. Nobody knows when, to what, or at what price. We are
>similarly ignorant of the future of the microprocessor business.

There's so much "noise" in the numbers for the energy production and usage
business... further blurred by the media dishing out such fraudulent junk
as the "hydrogen economy" being a way forward... or soccer-Moms in Iowa
telling us how "green" they feel by burning ethanol in their FFT SUVs. ô_Ô

The way I see it, unless some mind-boggling new technology is discovered,
the only "something else" to switch to from oil is nuclear. Of course, the
way the media has put it, the masses seem to have this weird idea that oil
supply is just going to dry up one day/year/decade... which is absurd.

>Small differences that don't seem to point anywhere don't seem very
>interesting to me. The switch to SOC designs interests me. The
>switch to stream processors interests me. A better interconnect
>interests me. All those things interest me because they have the
>potential to change the rules.
>
>The problem with microprocessors right now isn't that they can't be
>made to go faster. The problem is that the application space that can
>be accessed with a conventional single-processor architecture seems to
>have been pretty thoroughly explored. Just as three-D seismography
>quietly changed the rules in petroleum exploration, though, new
>technology can change the rules for microprocessors. I don't think
>that AMD taking aim at the Centrino brand is movement in that
>direction, though.

As I've said before, steady progress with the odd discontinuity is fine
with me; it's also the way that the application of science to engineering
solutions has traditionally worked, with few exceptions.

As for AMD, we'll see if they can come up with something to tackle the
notebook market... but there's nothing about Centrino which changes or
defines any rules.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2005 12:33:47 PM

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

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:21:39 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:12:23 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:42:46 -0500, George Macdonald
>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:07:47 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>

<snip>

>
>>I made an intense effort to understand what was going on with process
>>technology when all the surprises came down at 90nm, but since then
>>I've lost track of process technology. If Intel really has lost the
>>playbook, that would be news, but I don't really believe it.
>
>What's going on with process tech does not really have to be understood at
>the detail level to see the picture. IBM chief technologists, among
>others, have told us of the "end of scaling" - Intel has demonstrated the
>effect with 90nm P4. We know, as Keith has said right here, that the two
>critical issues involved are power density and leakage. OTOH nobody is
>talking of abandoning 65nm and lower, though they do talk of increasing
>difficulty.
>
But I don't know whether to take "the end of scaling" seriously or
not. What about nanotubes?

It doesn't matter, anyway? Hell, I don't know. Suppose you could
raise the computational density by a factor of a thousand. What kinds
of robotic widgets might we see as a result, for example?

>One of the results is dual or twin core CPUs, in order to be able to offer
>continuing levels of performance improvement. Intel is presenting
>something this week on new power management involving 64 levels of control,
>even for the next Itanium.
>
Especially for the next Itanium, I would have thought.

>I wouldn't go so far as to say that Intel has "lost the playbook" but their
>ego seems to be getting in the way when technology sharing is the way the
>rest of the industry is moving.
>
Intel is a cash cow. It's a weak defense, but they do behave better
than M$, which completely substitutes market domination for
competence.

>>As to performance, which I've also lost track of, Power5 and Itanium
>>seem to have run away from the pack on CFP2000. That's the horse race
>>that Intel wants. As to the pack, AMD is in the hunt, but only just.
>
>Really? I'm baffled as to why that's what Intel wants.
>

Keith and I effectively already had that discussion. Intel wants
enterprise applications locked onto Itanium the way they are locked
onto IBM mainframes. In that horse race, x86 is a sideshow--or Intel
wants it to be a sideshow. ;-).

>>CFP2000 not a realistic measure of real-world performance? Probably
>>not, but then what is, other than your own code? Yes, it is easier to
>>write naive code for AMD processors than it is to write naive code for
>>NetBurst or for Itanium.
>
>Horses for courses!
>
Yes, indeed. And that's why I get so bent out of shape about some of
the choices our esteemed national assets, er, laboratories, have been
making in hardware. Problems can define hardware, but it can (and
actually does) work the other way around.

<snip>

>
>>I mention "peak oil" here because off-topic rambling is my style, and
>>because it reminds me a bit of the microprocessor business, which
>>seems to have run out of steam. Past predictions of the future of
>>world oil production and energy usage have been so far off the mark as
>>to be useless. At some point, the world will switch from oil to
>>something else. Nobody knows when, to what, or at what price. We are
>>similarly ignorant of the future of the microprocessor business.
>
>There's so much "noise" in the numbers for the energy production and usage
>business... further blurred by the media dishing out such fraudulent junk
>as the "hydrogen economy" being a way forward... or soccer-Moms in Iowa
>telling us how "green" they feel by burning ethanol in their FFT SUVs. ô_Ô
>
>The way I see it, unless some mind-boggling new technology is discovered,
>the only "something else" to switch to from oil is nuclear. Of course, the
>way the media has put it, the masses seem to have this weird idea that oil
>supply is just going to dry up one day/year/decade... which is absurd.
>
If you ignore the ravings of the Malthusians and just look at what the
U.S. govt. is putting out, there are some interesting things
happening, and I'm never quite sure what's real and what's show.
There is an ORNL report that says, effectively, that, if you include
things like tar sands, you can forget about ever seeing a peak in oil
production, unless something dramatic happens to affect human
longevity.

OTOH, some of the noise about the hydrogen economy is coming from
within the U.S. govt., and some from contractors funded by the DoD.

If you look over the history of oil since 1974, it's been a history of
the kinds of surprises that you (and Keith) apparently favor: small
individually but important in the sum. Because it has been immensely
profitable (much more profitable than developing renewable energy
sources) people have just gotten smarter and smarter about finding and
extracting oil. As far as I can tell, none of the technology
developments that have reshaped the industry (albeit very quietly)
were foreseen in 1974. Meanwhilst, the revolutions that were supposed
to happen (nuclear, for example) still haven't happened.

One read is that "renewables" and "the hydrogen economy" coming from
Washington are really a message to oil-producing states: "We don't
need you." For all I know, some deeply cynical person inside the
government was thinking that way in 1974. The fear of even the
possibility of realistic alternatives to oil is what has kept OPEC in
line.

The lesson I draw from the oil business is one that Keith thinks I
don't understand: money drives everything. Until someone can count on
making the same kind of money displacing oil they can make by
producing it, people will continue to get smarter about producing oil
than to look for ways to displace it.

That very same mentality, of course, meant that DEC, IBM, et al, were
completely caught off guard by the attack of the killer micros. By
the time *they* could see the money on the table, the swarm was
already all over them.

>>Small differences that don't seem to point anywhere don't seem very
>>interesting to me. The switch to SOC designs interests me. The
>>switch to stream processors interests me. A better interconnect
>>interests me. All those things interest me because they have the
>>potential to change the rules.
>>
>>The problem with microprocessors right now isn't that they can't be
>>made to go faster. The problem is that the application space that can
>>be accessed with a conventional single-processor architecture seems to
>>have been pretty thoroughly explored. Just as three-D seismography
>>quietly changed the rules in petroleum exploration, though, new
>>technology can change the rules for microprocessors. I don't think
>>that AMD taking aim at the Centrino brand is movement in that
>>direction, though.
>
>As I've said before, steady progress with the odd discontinuity is fine
>with me; it's also the way that the application of science to engineering
>solutions has traditionally worked, with few exceptions.
>

It's hard to argue with a statement like that since steady progress
with a finite number of discontinuities covers a pretty broad class of
functions. You do seem to be ruling out functions that aren't
Riemann-integrable. ;-).

>As for AMD, we'll see if they can come up with something to tackle the
>notebook market... but there's nothing about Centrino which changes or
>defines any rules.

Oh, but I think it did. Everybody's got a wireless laptop, and
Centrino is the brand of choice. Big marketing score for Intel at a
time when they did just about everything else wrong.

Centrino isn't tied into connectivity in any kind of fundamental way,
but the drumbeat of the message is there: it isn't the processor
that's important, anymore, it's the whole platform. That's the battle
Intel has defined, and PCI-Xpress, Advanced Switching, and heaven only
knows what else are going to stomp Hypertransport. I understand why
the crowd here isn't pleased emotionally, but, unless those emotions
gain wider acceptance (something like what probably is happening to
Microsoft), Intel will do just fine.

RM
February 10, 2005 12:56:08 AM

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

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:45:53 -0500, Robert Myers wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:13:58 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:48:12 -0500, Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:41:19 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not when you're a Cray-1 bigot. ;-)
>>>
>>> Not a Cray bigot, Keith, a bandwidth bigot.
>>
>>1) No, you're a streaming processsor (a.k.a. Cray 1) bigot.
>>
>>2) See smiley.
>>
>
> Oh, I didn't take offense, and I certainly didn't intend to give any.

Big shoulders here. I was just stating a fact. ;-)

> Bandwidth and streaming processors kind of go together. It's a puzzle
> as to how some of these new stream processors can possibly stay fed.
> There's a recent comp.arch post to the subject. My eyes are already
> jittery from a day in front of a monitor, so I don't want to go look
> it up.

Seeee, that's where we differ. I'm a "latency" bigot, and I uunderstand
that my problem is bigger than yours. Bandwidth is too easy.

> In any case: Cray, vector processors, itanium, rambus, bandwidth,
> bandwidth, bandwidth. It's all of a piece. How did itanium get in
> there? It can act pretty much like a stream processor with software
> pipelining.

Boooring! All you need is money and you're happy. So convince your uncle
that you need some bux!


<snip>

>>If you have the money to spend, I'm sure you too can find someone
>>willing to accept it and give you what you dream of. Frankly, money
>>talks and science begs.
>
> Oh, science is doing just fine these days. Aside from the oil
> companies, I want to see if a company doing, say, drug discovery buys
> one.

What they're doing (or not) should be instructive. They have the bux to
force the issue if they see some profit at the end of teh tunnel. Sine
apparently they don't (correct me if I'm wrong)...

> There is an interesting post on realworldtech by someone who authors
> things like chess-playing software about the importance of having true
> random access to memory for things like search (which is what much of AI
> is coming down to). He also mentions the FFT. You can dismiss it as my
> private obsession, if you like, but I prefer to think of it as a really
> strong intuition as to what computing is really all about. Or, rather,
> a strong intuition as to what a real measure of capability is.

My *strong* intuition is opposite of yours, apparently. I really, really,
believe we're latency bound, not bandwidth bouund. All the works seems to
be going into trying to excuse latency.

> You are absolutely right: the guy with the checkbook writes the order.
> If the guy with the checkbook wants to keep doing what was already done
> twenty years ago, only just more of it, there is not much I can do about
> it.

The guy with the checkbook wins. THe guy with the biggest one can afford
to dabble in new things like Itanic or Cell. At least the jury is still
out on one of these. ;-)

--
Keith
February 10, 2005 1:10:26 AM

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

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:21:39 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:12:23 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:42:46 -0500, George Macdonald
>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:07:47 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>>This exchange has pushed me back into the "Does it really matter?"
>>>>mode. Intel's real marketing triumph has been to change the subject,
>>>>and, as usual, I'm completely bought in. The processors themselves
>>>>aren't going to get that much faster. What matters is how they are
>>>>connected. The Centrino campaign is one front in that offensive.
>>>
>>>Correction!: Intel processors are not going to go much faster -- SOI
>>>unnecessary<ptui> -- until they learn to follow when needs *dictate*.
>>>EM64T *might* be a sign there, no matter how difficult in the gullet, but
>>>their absurd claims that AMD "used Intel technology" to develop AMD64 are
>>>somewhat of a contradiction there. AMD, and IBM (+Sony/Toshiba) for that
>>>matter, have a few MHz to gain yet and Intel still doesn't have EM64T for
>>>their Pentium-M series; I hope they haven't left it to the skunk-works
>>>again.
>
> Oh I should have said Intel P4 processors are not going to go much faster
> above... which further highlights the lack of EM64T for Pentium-M.
>
>>I made an intense effort to understand what was going on with process
>>technology when all the surprises came down at 90nm, but since then
>>I've lost track of process technology. If Intel really has lost the
>>playbook, that would be news, but I don't really believe it.
>
> What's going on with process tech does not really have to be understood at
> the detail level to see the picture. IBM chief technologists, among
> others, have told us of the "end of scaling" - Intel has demonstrated the
> effect with 90nm P4. We know, as Keith has said right here, that the two
> critical issues involved are power density and leakage. OTOH nobody is
> talking of abandoning 65nm and lower, though they do talk of increasing
> difficulty.

This isn't anything new. The press has been suggesting the end of the
world is here for at least twenty years, and that science wouldn't
kill Moore, rather the counters-of-beans would. So far they're twenty
years out of touch. The techies seem to come through, though the
counters-of-beans aren't much happy with the price tag either. I can see
perhaps another ten years, though the price tag isn't going to
be trivial. The croupier is still dealing, though there are fewer at the
table.

>
> One of the results is dual or twin core CPUs, in order to be able to
> offer continuing levels of performance improvement.

Huh? Dual cores are there because there isn't anythign else useful to do
with the free transistors. Caches have played out their hand.

> Intel is presenting
> something this week on new power management involving 64 levels of
> control, even for the next Itanium.

Yawn.

> I wouldn't go so far as to say that Intel has "lost the playbook" but
> their ego seems to be getting in the way when technology sharing is the
> way the rest of the industry is moving.

Let's just say they took the yey off the ball. ...sorta like Philly last
weekend. ;-)

>>As to performance, which I've also lost track of, Power5 and Itanium
>>seem to have run away from the pack on CFP2000. That's the horse race
>>that Intel wants. As to the pack, AMD is in the hunt, but only just.
>
> Really? I'm baffled as to why that's what Intel wants.

They've wanted to kill x86 for some time. Competition is *hard*. They
wanted to kill all the rest. ...almost made it happen, IMO.

<snip oil-politic stuff -- too tired>

--
Keith
February 10, 2005 1:13:16 AM

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

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:10:04 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> keith wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:06:00 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> I still remember those ads, and Corinthian leather was only one of the
>>> awesome features that were touted. Others were "AM/FM cassette radio"
>>> (Wow! Those are a whole $20 at Best Buy.) and, my personal favorite,
>>> "optional wire wheel covers" (Wow! I can pay extra and get wire
>>> wheel covers? And I can't do that on other cars?)
>>
>>What do you pay for an auto radio today? Just because you can buy a
>>"transistor" radio for $20 at K-Mart doesn't mean the radio in the car is
>>the same thing.
>
> Yeah, the $20 K-Mart radio was probably better. I'm only being
> slightly facetious when I say that.

<serious mode> Tell me that again after 100K New England miles.
Automotive electronics is some pretty rugged stuff. The environment is
rather harsh.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2005 2:31:30 AM

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

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:33:47 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:21:39 -0500, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>>I made an intense effort to understand what was going on with process
>>>technology when all the surprises came down at 90nm, but since then
>>>I've lost track of process technology. If Intel really has lost the
>>>playbook, that would be news, but I don't really believe it.
>>
>>What's going on with process tech does not really have to be understood at
>>the detail level to see the picture. IBM chief technologists, among
>>others, have told us of the "end of scaling" - Intel has demonstrated the
>>effect with 90nm P4. We know, as Keith has said right here, that the two
>>critical issues involved are power density and leakage. OTOH nobody is
>>talking of abandoning 65nm and lower, though they do talk of increasing
>>difficulty.
>>
>But I don't know whether to take "the end of scaling" seriously or
>not. What about nanotubes?

I think it's serious OK -- we already have evidence -- and I'm not sure
which part of the problem nanotubes solves... besides which major change in
material like that is bound to have an extended development time.

>It doesn't matter, anyway? Hell, I don't know. Suppose you could
>raise the computational density by a factor of a thousand. What kinds
>of robotic widgets might we see as a result, for example?

Given the way govt. is working those days I'm very suspicious of the way
robotic anything gets abused. Take a look at the last 3 paras here
http://www.edn.com/article/CA185948.html for what CARB was experimenting
with 3 years ago. Take a drive through the U.K. and you'll see their
highways lined with electronic snitches - the latest models are buried in
the road so you can't even see them.

>>I wouldn't go so far as to say that Intel has "lost the playbook" but their
>>ego seems to be getting in the way when technology sharing is the way the
>>rest of the industry is moving.
>>
>Intel is a cash cow. It's a weak defense, but they do behave better
>than M$, which completely substitutes market domination for
>competence.

See my post on RHEL 4.0 on dual AMD64 - M$ and maybe even Sun must be
worried. As for Intel, I wonder how many $billions they've pissed away on
efforts to proprietarize the architecture?

>>>As to performance, which I've also lost track of, Power5 and Itanium
>>>seem to have run away from the pack on CFP2000. That's the horse race
>>>that Intel wants. As to the pack, AMD is in the hunt, but only just.
>>
>>Really? I'm baffled as to why that's what Intel wants.
>>
>
>Keith and I effectively already had that discussion. Intel wants
>enterprise applications locked onto Itanium the way they are locked
>onto IBM mainframes. In that horse race, x86 is a sideshow--or Intel
>wants it to be a sideshow. ;-).

Keith likely said the same but.... ain't gonna happen. Anyway, FP matters
little for "enterprise applications" - sorry, I don't see it.

>>>CFP2000 not a realistic measure of real-world performance? Probably
>>>not, but then what is, other than your own code? Yes, it is easier to
>>>write naive code for AMD processors than it is to write naive code for
>>>NetBurst or for Itanium.
>>
>>Horses for courses!
>>
>Yes, indeed. And that's why I get so bent out of shape about some of
>the choices our esteemed national assets, er, laboratories, have been
>making in hardware. Problems can define hardware, but it can (and
>actually does) work the other way around.

Don't you think this is just a fact of the change in economics: (nobody*
can afford a modern day equivalent of a Cray. Even though the Japanese
have done it, it's basically a boat-anchor.

>>>I mention "peak oil" here because off-topic rambling is my style, and
>>>because it reminds me a bit of the microprocessor business, which
>>>seems to have run out of steam. Past predictions of the future of
>>>world oil production and energy usage have been so far off the mark as
>>>to be useless. At some point, the world will switch from oil to
>>>something else. Nobody knows when, to what, or at what price. We are
>>>similarly ignorant of the future of the microprocessor business.
>>
>>There's so much "noise" in the numbers for the energy production and usage
>>business... further blurred by the media dishing out such fraudulent junk
>>as the "hydrogen economy" being a way forward... or soccer-Moms in Iowa
>>telling us how "green" they feel by burning ethanol in their FFT SUVs. ô_Ô
>>
>>The way I see it, unless some mind-boggling new technology is discovered,
>>the only "something else" to switch to from oil is nuclear. Of course, the
>>way the media has put it, the masses seem to have this weird idea that oil
>>supply is just going to dry up one day/year/decade... which is absurd.
>>
>If you ignore the ravings of the Malthusians and just look at what the
>U.S. govt. is putting out, there are some interesting things
>happening, and I'm never quite sure what's real and what's show.
>There is an ORNL report that says, effectively, that, if you include
>things like tar sands, you can forget about ever seeing a peak in oil
>production, unless something dramatic happens to affect human
>longevity.
>
>OTOH, some of the noise about the hydrogen economy is coming from
>within the U.S. govt., and some from contractors funded by the DoD.

To paraphrase Eisenhower: beware the academic-bureaucratic complex!

>If you look over the history of oil since 1974, it's been a history of
>the kinds of surprises that you (and Keith) apparently favor: small
>individually but important in the sum. Because it has been immensely
>profitable (much more profitable than developing renewable energy
>sources) people have just gotten smarter and smarter about finding and
>extracting oil. As far as I can tell, none of the technology
>developments that have reshaped the industry (albeit very quietly)
>were foreseen in 1974. Meanwhilst, the revolutions that were supposed
>to happen (nuclear, for example) still haven't happened.

The technology of the petroleum industry hasn't really changed that much in
30 years - a couple of new processes to bolster fine tuning of existing
octane production... and banish aromatics and other unsaturates. The
biggest change has probably been the disappearance of the small
"tea-kettle" refiners.

>One read is that "renewables" and "the hydrogen economy" coming from
>Washington are really a message to oil-producing states: "We don't
>need you." For all I know, some deeply cynical person inside the
>government was thinking that way in 1974. The fear of even the
>possibility of realistic alternatives to oil is what has kept OPEC in
>line.

Could be but OPEC has scientists too - they must know that renewables and
hydrogen fail on umpteen fundamental, scientific/economic counts.

>The lesson I draw from the oil business is one that Keith thinks I
>don't understand: money drives everything. Until someone can count on
>making the same kind of money displacing oil they can make by
>producing it, people will continue to get smarter about producing oil
>than to look for ways to displace it.

And of course the petroleum companies are well placed to make that decision
to "displace".

<<snip>>

>>As I've said before, steady progress with the odd discontinuity is fine
>>with me; it's also the way that the application of science to engineering
>>solutions has traditionally worked, with few exceptions.
>>
>
>It's hard to argue with a statement like that since steady progress
>with a finite number of discontinuities covers a pretty broad class of
>functions. You do seem to be ruling out functions that aren't
>Riemann-integrable. ;-).
>
>>As for AMD, we'll see if they can come up with something to tackle the
>>notebook market... but there's nothing about Centrino which changes or
>>defines any rules.
>
>Oh, but I think it did. Everybody's got a wireless laptop, and
>Centrino is the brand of choice. Big marketing score for Intel at a
>time when they did just about everything else wrong.

OK - marketing score.... au suivant!;-)

>Centrino isn't tied into connectivity in any kind of fundamental way,
>but the drumbeat of the message is there: it isn't the processor
>that's important, anymore, it's the whole platform. That's the battle
>Intel has defined, and PCI-Xpress, Advanced Switching, and heaven only
>knows what else are going to stomp Hypertransport. I understand why
>the crowd here isn't pleased emotionally, but, unless those emotions
>gain wider acceptance (something like what probably is happening to
>Microsoft), Intel will do just fine.

But Hypertransport and PCI-Express play together - stomping is not
required. When Intel does its on-chip memory controller they'll need
something equivalent to HyperTransport; no doubt AMD will develop from what
they have. Basically Intel has not been allowed to proprietarize their
"platform"... the game is open for the foreseeable future. I really don't
see anything to be displeased about... and certainly not emotionally

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2005 11:36:20 AM

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

keith wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:10:04 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> keith wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:06:00 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I still remember those ads, and Corinthian leather was only one of the
>>>> awesome features that were touted. Others were "AM/FM cassette radio"
>>>> (Wow! Those are a whole $20 at Best Buy.) and, my personal favorite,
>>>> "optional wire wheel covers" (Wow! I can pay extra and get wire
>>>> wheel covers? And I can't do that on other cars?)
>>>
>>>What do you pay for an auto radio today? Just because you can buy a
>>>"transistor" radio for $20 at K-Mart doesn't mean the radio in the car is
>>>the same thing.
>>
>> Yeah, the $20 K-Mart radio was probably better. I'm only being
>> slightly facetious when I say that.
>
><serious mode> Tell me that again after 100K New England miles.
>Automotive electronics is some pretty rugged stuff. The environment is
>rather harsh.

I was referring to aftermarket automotive radios being quite
affordable. Is the OEM radio "better built" and thus more costly to
make? Maybe, but the point is, it was not a great "feature" for a car
to have a kool AM/FM cassette radio - they simply were not uncommon or
expensive.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2005 1:16:47 PM

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

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:31:30 -0500, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:33:47 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:21:39 -0500, George Macdonald
>><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>>>I made an intense effort to understand what was going on with process
>>>>technology when all the surprises came down at 90nm, but since then
>>>>I've lost track of process technology. If Intel really has lost the
>>>>playbook, that would be news, but I don't really believe it.
>>>
>>>What's going on with process tech does not really have to be understood at
>>>the detail level to see the picture. IBM chief technologists, among
>>>others, have told us of the "end of scaling" - Intel has demonstrated the
>>>effect with 90nm P4. We know, as Keith has said right here, that the two
>>>critical issues involved are power density and leakage. OTOH nobody is
>>>talking of abandoning 65nm and lower, though they do talk of increasing
>>>difficulty.
>>>
>>But I don't know whether to take "the end of scaling" seriously or
>>not. What about nanotubes?
>
>I think it's serious OK -- we already have evidence -- and I'm not sure
>which part of the problem nanotubes solves...

Mobility. Faster gates at lower voltage, smallest possible voltage
being the goal of low power operation.

http://www.eetimes.com/at/news/OEG20031217S0020

I've got a decent physics education, but I'm not a solid state
physicist and certainly not a device engineer. I am pretty quick with
google:

nanotube transistor mobility electron OR carrier.

Carbon nanotubes also have very attractive thermal properties. They
also currently cost about as much, pound for pound, as industrial
diamonds.

>besides which major change in
>material like that is bound to have an extended development time.
>
Don't know how to evaluate that. There's a company nearby I could
walk to that thinks it's going to revolutionize memory (memory always
comes first, doesn't it?) surviving on venture capital. They'd better
come up with something pretty quick.

>>It doesn't matter, anyway? Hell, I don't know. Suppose you could
>>raise the computational density by a factor of a thousand. What kinds
>>of robotic widgets might we see as a result, for example?
>
>Given the way govt. is working those days I'm very suspicious of the way
>robotic anything gets abused. Take a look at the last 3 paras here
>http://www.edn.com/article/CA185948.html for what CARB was experimenting
>with 3 years ago. Take a drive through the U.K. and you'll see their
>highways lined with electronic snitches - the latest models are buried in
>the road so you can't even see them.
>
Creepy. Embedded microelectronics in cars already don't work.

Mustn't confuse what you can do with existing embedded electronics
with what would be possible if the rules really changed. Advances in
AI would be nice, but there is, as far as I can tell, an esentially
inexhaustible demand for cycles in the business of motion dynamics and
kinematics.

>>>I wouldn't go so far as to say that Intel has "lost the playbook" but their
>>>ego seems to be getting in the way when technology sharing is the way the
>>>rest of the industry is moving.
>>>
>>Intel is a cash cow. It's a weak defense, but they do behave better
>>than M$, which completely substitutes market domination for
>>competence.
>
>See my post on RHEL 4.0 on dual AMD64 - M$ and maybe even Sun must be
>worried.

AMD-based server doesn't even make it into the top ten on $/tpmc:

http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?print=...

Power doesn't. Xeon does. Itanium does. I doubt very much that
anybody at Intel is in a panic.

>As for Intel, I wonder how many $billions they've pissed away on
>efforts to proprietarize the architecture?
>

Watch for Intel to push RAS. And push, and push, and push. Think
Centrino.

>>>>As to performance, which I've also lost track of, Power5 and Itanium
>>>>seem to have run away from the pack on CFP2000. That's the horse race
>>>>that Intel wants. As to the pack, AMD is in the hunt, but only just.
>>>
>>>Really? I'm baffled as to why that's what Intel wants.
>>>
>>
>>Keith and I effectively already had that discussion. Intel wants
>>enterprise applications locked onto Itanium the way they are locked
>>onto IBM mainframes. In that horse race, x86 is a sideshow--or Intel
>>wants it to be a sideshow. ;-).
>
>Keith likely said the same but.... ain't gonna happen. Anyway, FP matters
>little for "enterprise applications" - sorry, I don't see it.
>

No, but the $/tpmc numbers do. RIP Ken Olsen. I didn't mean to imply
the Keith agrees with me, but we have discussed Intel's mainframe-envy
and how it plays out as a business strategy.

>>>>CFP2000 not a realistic measure of real-world performance? Probably
>>>>not, but then what is, other than your own code? Yes, it is easier to
>>>>write naive code for AMD processors than it is to write naive code for
>>>>NetBurst or for Itanium.
>>>
>>>Horses for courses!
>>>
>>Yes, indeed. And that's why I get so bent out of shape about some of
>>the choices our esteemed national assets, er, laboratories, have been
>>making in hardware. Problems can define hardware, but it can (and
>>actually does) work the other way around.
>
>Don't you think this is just a fact of the change in economics: (nobody*
>can afford a modern day equivalent of a Cray. Even though the Japanese
>have done it, it's basically a boat-anchor.
>

Oh, the cluster poster to comp.arch who has such contempt for my
wisdom got on my case for dissing the Earth Simulator, too.
Megabureaucrat projects: think Donald Trump. Real estate, staff,
power, ego. Earth simulator plainly does well on my touchstone
calculation, the FFT, but I've been told that on less ideal
calculations that require global communication it self-partitions into
"islands of performance."

As the alternative, think tiny, low power stream processors with a
sizzling commodity interconnect, not yesterday's embedded processor
with an undersized interconnect and a custom router. Custom Cray
processors don't make any sense? Probably not anymore. Commodity is
the right word. The national lab's latest pick just chose the wrong
commodity (out of date embedded microprocessor) to build on.

<snip>

>>>The way I see it, unless some mind-boggling new technology is discovered,
>>>the only "something else" to switch to from oil is nuclear. Of course, the
>>>way the media has put it, the masses seem to have this weird idea that oil
>>>supply is just going to dry up one day/year/decade... which is absurd.
>>>
>>If you ignore the ravings of the Malthusians and just look at what the
>>U.S. govt. is putting out, there are some interesting things
>>happening, and I'm never quite sure what's real and what's show.
>>There is an ORNL report that says, effectively, that, if you include
>>things like tar sands, you can forget about ever seeing a peak in oil
>>production, unless something dramatic happens to affect human
>>longevity.
>>
>>OTOH, some of the noise about the hydrogen economy is coming from
>>within the U.S. govt., and some from contractors funded by the DoD.
>
>To paraphrase Eisenhower: beware the academic-bureaucratic complex!
>
The academic-bureaucratic complex can move the DoE and the national
labs, but not the energy industry.

>>If you look over the history of oil since 1974, it's been a history of
>>the kinds of surprises that you (and Keith) apparently favor: small
>>individually but important in the sum. Because it has been immensely
>>profitable (much more profitable than developing renewable energy
>>sources) people have just gotten smarter and smarter about finding and
>>extracting oil. As far as I can tell, none of the technology
>>developments that have reshaped the industry (albeit very quietly)
>>were foreseen in 1974. Meanwhilst, the revolutions that were supposed
>>to happen (nuclear, for example) still haven't happened.
>
>The technology of the petroleum industry hasn't really changed that much in
>30 years - a couple of new processes to bolster fine tuning of existing
>octane production... and banish aromatics and other unsaturates. The
>biggest change has probably been the disappearance of the small
>"tea-kettle" refiners.
>
Seismic tomography just keeps getting better and better, the cost of
finding new oil has *dropped* over the last quarter century or so
(because people have gotten much smarter about where they look), and
people keep revising their estimates of what can be extracted upward
(sometimes, admittedly, not always with complete honesty).

>>One read is that "renewables" and "the hydrogen economy" coming from
>>Washington are really a message to oil-producing states: "We don't
>>need you." For all I know, some deeply cynical person inside the
>>government was thinking that way in 1974. The fear of even the
>>possibility of realistic alternatives to oil is what has kept OPEC in
>>line.
>
>Could be but OPEC has scientists too - they must know that renewables and
>hydrogen fail on umpteen fundamental, scientific/economic counts.
>
I read somewhere (National Academy of Sciences, I think) that hydrogen
as a fuel has about the same time horizon as a mars mission. Biofuels
are more realistic. They're not getting the emphasis because they
don't keep the attention of the weapons scientists (hydrogen
economy==hot fusion). If the price of oil were stable at a
sufficiently high level, renewables would become much more of a
player.

>>The lesson I draw from the oil business is one that Keith thinks I
>>don't understand: money drives everything. Until someone can count on
>>making the same kind of money displacing oil they can make by
>>producing it, people will continue to get smarter about producing oil
>>than to look for ways to displace it.
>
>And of course the petroleum companies are well placed to make that decision
>to "displace".
>
Maybe not as well placed as they'd like, but, to the extent they're
playing, that's the game.

><<snip>>
>
>>>As I've said before, steady progress with the odd discontinuity is fine
>>>with me; it's also the way that the application of science to engineering
>>>solutions has traditionally worked, with few exceptions.
>>>
>>
>>It's hard to argue with a statement like that since steady progress
>>with a finite number of discontinuities covers a pretty broad class of
>>functions. You do seem to be ruling out functions that aren't
>>Riemann-integrable. ;-).
>>
>>>As for AMD, we'll see if they can come up with something to tackle the
>>>notebook market... but there's nothing about Centrino which changes or
>>>defines any rules.
>>
>>Oh, but I think it did. Everybody's got a wireless laptop, and
>>Centrino is the brand of choice. Big marketing score for Intel at a
>>time when they did just about everything else wrong.
>
>OK - marketing score.... au suivant!;-)
>
Itanium-based Enterprise servers have all the RAS features of z-series
and they are much, much less expensive.

>>Centrino isn't tied into connectivity in any kind of fundamental way,
>>but the drumbeat of the message is there: it isn't the processor
>>that's important, anymore, it's the whole platform. That's the battle
>>Intel has defined, and PCI-Xpress, Advanced Switching, and heaven only
>>knows what else are going to stomp Hypertransport. I understand why
>>the crowd here isn't pleased emotionally, but, unless those emotions
>>gain wider acceptance (something like what probably is happening to
>>Microsoft), Intel will do just fine.
>
>But Hypertransport and PCI-Express play together - stomping is not
>required. When Intel does its on-chip memory controller they'll need
>something equivalent to HyperTransport;
>no doubt AMD will develop from what
>they have. Basically Intel has not been allowed to proprietarize their
>"platform"... the game is open for the foreseeable future.

Right. As long as you're willing to stick a bridge in there, you can
hook up to infrastructure that's driven by Intel architecture.

RM
!