Intel faces pricing dilemma from Dell

[Guest]

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

Dell has said that it does not want to raise prices on its systems any
more than what it normally does with any other new CPU introduction.
With Intel expected to ask upto 90% per dual-core CPU than single-core,
either Dell is going to have raise its prices, or Intel will have to
reduce its. My feeling is that Intel is going to have to sell its chips
to Dell at whatever price Dell wants it to.

Forbes.com: Intel Faces 'Pricing Dilemma' For Dual-Core Chips
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/04/07/0407automarketscan13.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:01:22 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:18:45 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Dell has said that it does not want to raise prices on its systems any
>>more than what it normally does with any other new CPU introduction.
>>With Intel expected to ask upto 90% per dual-core CPU than single-core,
>>either Dell is going to have raise its prices, or Intel will have to
>>reduce its. My feeling is that Intel is going to have to sell its chips
>>to Dell at whatever price Dell wants it to.
>>
>>Forbes.com: Intel Faces 'Pricing Dilemma' For Dual-Core Chips
>>http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/04/07/0407automarketscan13.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=
>>
>
>Yousuf, I know how you enjoy bad news for Intel, but this is a coming
>problem for the entire industry: "What if they announced a miracle,
>and everybody went back to watching the Simpsons?"
>
>Just as AMD has gotten some margin relief from Opteron, Intel is
>probably going to be looking for margin in the Xeon market. With
>desktop chips, everybody should just be happy if people want to
>upgrade, never mind that they want to pay extra money for something
>most software can't yet use.

A myth.

Run a typical mix of applications, then open Task Manager and click on the
Processes sheet. Expand any threaded entries. Count.

If you still believe the two cores would not be used even on a lowly desktop
machine by mere tyros, your Add function is FUBAR...

/daytripper (hth ;-)

 

[keith]

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

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:14:53 -0400, daytripper wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:01:22 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:18:45 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Dell has said that it does not want to raise prices on its systems any
>>>more than what it normally does with any other new CPU introduction.
>>>With Intel expected to ask upto 90% per dual-core CPU than single-core,
>>>either Dell is going to have raise its prices, or Intel will have to
>>>reduce its. My feeling is that Intel is going to have to sell its chips
>>>to Dell at whatever price Dell wants it to.
>>>
>>>Forbes.com: Intel Faces 'Pricing Dilemma' For Dual-Core Chips
>>>http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/04/07/0407automarketscan13.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=
>>>
>>
>>Yousuf, I know how you enjoy bad news for Intel, but this is a coming
>>problem for the entire industry: "What if they announced a miracle,
>>and everybody went back to watching the Simpsons?"
>>
>>Just as AMD has gotten some margin relief from Opteron, Intel is
>>probably going to be looking for margin in the Xeon market. With
>>desktop chips, everybody should just be happy if people want to
>>upgrade, never mind that they want to pay extra money for something
>>most software can't yet use.
>
> A myth.
>
> Run a typical mix of applications, then open Task Manager and click on the
> Processes sheet. Expand any threaded entries. Count.

Maybe RM still used Win9x. ;-) I remember these exact same arguments
thrown about by Win(g)nuts saying that OS/2's multi-tasking wasn't useful,
because no one can do two things at once.

> If you still believe the two cores would not be used even on a lowly desktop
> machine by mere tyros, your Add function is FUBAR...

....but only add those with processor activity. Yes, this argument is old
as Daisy Moses Clampett, and is still being spread be the Jethros of the
biz.

There is no question that dual cores are a good thing on the desktop
(given that they're going to be "free"). The question is how many cores
are useful. That is, how many of those things in the process window can
be kept doing something interesting.

Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't. Expect
more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see multiple cores
- all very predictable).

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:36:58 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

<snip>

>
>There is no question that dual cores are a good thing on the desktop
>(given that they're going to be "free"). The question is how many cores
>are useful. That is, how many of those things in the process window can
>be kept doing something interesting.
>
>Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't. Expect
>more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see multiple cores
>- all very predictable).

*Why* did anybody need 365 cubic inches and eight cylinders to drive
around city streets? To give young men the temptation to attract the
attention of the police by trying to do something will all that power
in a venu where it wasn't really useful, naturally.

An imperfect analogy? Maybe, but it's a sufficiently good fit that it
should make anyone in the business uncomfortable. When everybody had
a car that satisfied their basic transportation needs, Detroit had to
invent new needs, one of which was more power.

The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is how a
typical user uses computers. The typical user will buy more just as
people bought more horsepower because more is obviously always better?
To some extent, yes. But do take a look at the automobile industry.

RM

 

[Guest]

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

Robert Myers wrote:
>>Well, this is not really the point, is it? Both Intel and AMD want to
>>charge quite a bit more for these new DC chips to make up for their
>>reduced yields. But it looks like one specific Intel-only vendor is
>>going to throw a monkey wrench into Intel's plans for profitability.
>>
>
> I may not find Michael Dell to be an attractive role model, but I do
> think he understands what people will buy and at what price.

Still missing the point. The point is that we're now going to see how
much power and influence each corporation (Dell & Intel) has with each
other now that they've recommitted to exclusivity with each other again.
It would show which one really wanted the exclusivity deal more.

>>If any revolution is needed in PC's it's get their prices down much,
>>much further. To the point where even the 3rd world can afford them.
>>
>
> Do you think PC's would really help the third world that much?

Yes, absolutely. However, I don't think it's appropriate to sell PC
technology to rice farmers and stuff. They should be concentrating on
the emerging affluent members of the third world, such as China, India,
Southeast Asia, etc.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> BTW the AMD/Dell rumors are back:
> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050407/tech_dell_amd.html?.v=1
>

Yup, saw those too, but not quite as much enthusiasm for them this time
like there was last time. Last time was the first time ever that
top-level Dell execs have openly said that they wanted to use AMD chips,
.... just before they announced that they won't of course. This time, it
won't even matter if Michael Dell himself says it, no one is going to
believe it.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.04.08.02.36.55.365047@att.bizzzz...
>
> There is no question that dual cores are a good thing on the desktop
> (given that they're going to be "free"). The question is how many
cores
> are useful. That is, how many of those things in the process window
can
> be kept doing something interesting.

Based on 20+ years of PC experience, I think it's safe to say that
_one_ CPU core is useful in a desktop PC. More? What have they (both
of them been using those dual-CPU Macs for?

> Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't.
Expect
> more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see multiple
cores
> - all very predictable).

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
> But do take a look at the automobile industry.

OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
powerful engines than they really need or often use.

I'm a fan of SMP (and by extention dual cores), but I really
don't think they're much good for most users who use a computer
in a single-threaded fashion. Yes, there's an obnoxious pile
of system processes, but most of these should be blocked and
not eat up enough of the CPU that the user notice. If they
do, then the problem is with these processes which no longer
meet the defintion of "background".

Most users will be much happier with double clockspeed rather
than two CPUs. Not so servers where the inherent heavy
multithreading and high interrupt load makes SMP attractive
to the point to being required.

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

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

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
newsFx5e.8856$c76.6562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

> Most users will be much happier with double clockspeed rather
> than two CPUs. Not so servers where the inherent heavy
> multithreading and high interrupt load makes SMP attractive
> to the point to being required.

I don't agree. Most users haven't tried machines with more than one CPU,
but when they do, they're usually thrilled with the reduction in the hangs
and delays that single-CPU machines experience. I've heard it described many
times as the best computer upgrade they ever made.

Those of you who have used Windows on single-CPU machines and never
tried a machine with more than once CPU probably don't even notice all the
little hangs and delays (and the occasional big one). You start to not even
notice that during the four seconds it takes to launch Photoshop, you can't
keep working on that email very well. Well, on a multi-CPU machine, you can.
Try one for a day and see if you ever want to go back.

DS

 

[keith]

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

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:04:35 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> George Macdonald wrote:
>> BTW the AMD/Dell rumors are back:
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050407/tech_dell_amd.html?.v=1
>>
>
> Yup, saw those too, but not quite as much enthusiasm for them this time
> like there was last time. Last time was the first time ever that
> top-level Dell execs have openly said that they wanted to use AMD chips,
> ... just before they announced that they won't of course. This time, it
> won't even matter if Michael Dell himself says it, no one is going to
> believe it.

Yousuf, why is this time any different than the last? That wolf is old,
gray, and well past tired. Who cares what it says?

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
newsFx5e.8856$c76.6562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
>> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
>> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
>> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>
> OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
> two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
> powerful engines than they really need or often use.

I know of one with 4 engines ... think "Utah" and "Salt Flats".
I want my computer to do that (run fast).

> I'm a fan of SMP (and by extention dual cores), but I really
> don't think they're much good for most users who use a computer
> in a single-threaded fashion. Yes, there's an obnoxious pile
> of system processes, but most of these should be blocked and
> not eat up enough of the CPU that the user notice. If they
> do, then the problem is with these processes which no longer
> meet the defintion of "background".
>
> Most users will be much happier with double clockspeed rather
> than two CPUs. Not so servers where the inherent heavy
> multithreading and high interrupt load makes SMP attractive
> to the point to being required.



--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

 

[keith]

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

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:29:41 +0000, Hank Oredson wrote:

> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
> newsFx5e.8856$c76.6562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
>>> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
>>> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
>>> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
>>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>>
>> OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>> two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
>> powerful engines than they really need or often use.
>
> I know of one with 4 engines ... think "Utah" and "Salt Flats".
> I want my computer to do that (run fast).

Ok, I know of computers with a thousand "engines". So?

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
> Those of you who have used Windows on single-CPU machines
> and never tried a machine with more than once CPU probably
> don't even notice all the little hangs and delays (and

Perhaps this is true, but then wouldn't those little hangs be
more the fault of poor OS programming (scheduler) than the lack
of hardware? Of course, more hardware has always been a mitigation
for poor programming. And such by MS has helped Linux enormously.

> the occasional big one). You start to not even notice
> that during the four seconds it takes to launch Photoshop,
> you can't keep working on that email very well. Well, on a
> multi-CPU machine, you can. Try one for a day and see if
> you ever want to go back.

I very much doubt it would help. One of my biggest complaints
about MS-Windows so-called multitasking is lack of isolation
(focus-stealing). I can be merrily typing or clicking along in
one app when another pops up (often on top), and steals focus,
keystrokes and mouseclicks. Or buries some error window when
banished.

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

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

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:LRE5e.29$m84.21@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
> wrote:

>> Those of you who have used Windows on single-CPU machines
>> and never tried a machine with more than once CPU probably
>> don't even notice all the little hangs and delays (and

> Perhaps this is true, but then wouldn't those little hangs be
> more the fault of poor OS programming (scheduler) than the lack
> of hardware? Of course, more hardware has always been a mitigation
> for poor programming. And such by MS has helped Linux enormously.

Perhaps. Part of the issue is poorly designed peripherals and some of it
is poorly designed drivers.

>> the occasional big one). You start to not even notice
>> that during the four seconds it takes to launch Photoshop,
>> you can't keep working on that email very well. Well, on a
>> multi-CPU machine, you can. Try one for a day and see if
>> you ever want to go back.

> I very much doubt it would help. One of my biggest complaints
> about MS-Windows so-called multitasking is lack of isolation
> (focus-stealing). I can be merrily typing or clicking along in
> one app when another pops up (often on top), and steals focus,
> keystrokes and mouseclicks. Or buries some error window when
> banished.

Yeah, that is one of my biggest complaints as well. However, that's a
separate issue from the issue of annoying hangs/delays/stalls when you're
trying to get work done.

DS

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:52:09 -0700, "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
wrote:

>
>"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
>news:LRE5e.29$m84.21@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Those of you who have used Windows on single-CPU machines
>>> and never tried a machine with more than once CPU probably
>>> don't even notice all the little hangs and delays (and
>
>> Perhaps this is true, but then wouldn't those little hangs be
>> more the fault of poor OS programming (scheduler) than the lack
>> of hardware? Of course, more hardware has always been a mitigation
>> for poor programming. And such by MS has helped Linux enormously.
>
> Perhaps. Part of the issue is poorly designed peripherals and some of it
>is poorly designed drivers.
>
>>> the occasional big one). You start to not even notice
>>> that during the four seconds it takes to launch Photoshop,
>>> you can't keep working on that email very well. Well, on a
>>> multi-CPU machine, you can. Try one for a day and see if
>>> you ever want to go back.
>
>> I very much doubt it would help. One of my biggest complaints
>> about MS-Windows so-called multitasking is lack of isolation
>> (focus-stealing). I can be merrily typing or clicking along in
>> one app when another pops up (often on top), and steals focus,
>> keystrokes and mouseclicks. Or buries some error window when
>> banished.
>
> Yeah, that is one of my biggest complaints as well. However, that's a
>separate issue from the issue of annoying hangs/delays/stalls when you're
>trying to get work done.

At least on 2K and XP, focus theft behavior is one that can be controlled
using any of the ui "tweak" registry hack tools. In TweakXP (MS Powertoys
component) the switch is right near the top of the list...

/daytripper

 

[Guest]

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

"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lnce51hdtmg7k8b0oifafvocmhl0c9klnr@4ax.com...

> At least on 2K and XP, focus theft behavior is one that can be controlled
> using any of the ui "tweak" registry hack tools. In TweakXP (MS Powertoys
> component) the switch is right near the top of the list...

That helps a lot but doesn't entirely solve it.

DS

 

[Guest]

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

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.04.09.02.20.44.61407@att.bizzzz...
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:29:41 +0000, Hank Oredson wrote:
>
>> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> newsFx5e.8856$c76.6562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
>>>> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
>>>> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
>>>> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
>>>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>>>
>>> OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>>> two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
>>> powerful engines than they really need or often use.
>>
>> I know of one with 4 engines ... think "Utah" and "Salt Flats".
>> I want my computer to do that (run fast).
>
> Ok, I know of computers with a thousand "engines". So?


On your desktop?

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

 

[Guest]

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> >>Well, this is not really the point, is it? Both Intel and AMD want
to
> >>charge quite a bit more for these new DC chips to make up for their

> >>reduced yields. But it looks like one specific Intel-only vendor is

> >>going to throw a monkey wrench into Intel's plans for
profitability.
> >>
> >
> > I may not find Michael Dell to be an attractive role model, but I
do
> > think he understands what people will buy and at what price.
>
> Still missing the point. The point is that we're now going to see how

> much power and influence each corporation (Dell & Intel) has with
each
> other now that they've recommitted to exclusivity with each other
again.
> It would show which one really wanted the exclusivity deal more.
>
I don't think we're going to understand much about that relationship
from what appears as news. Anybody who has seen what has happened with
Walmart and its suppliers might be tempted to think that Dell would
like to deal with Intel in the same way. One difference is that Dell
isn't as financially secure as Walmart.

The important difference is that Dell and Intel really do need each
other. Intel needs Dell to figure out how to move product and actually
to do it. As to Dell needing Intel, I'm sure you're going to argue
that isn't obvious. For Dell, an Intel that can't make its numbers
would be the beginning of the end. I'll bet on Michael Dell
understanding that even if you wouldn't.


> >>If any revolution is needed in PC's it's get their prices down
much,
> >>much further. To the point where even the 3rd world can afford
them.
> >>
> >
> > Do you think PC's would really help the third world that much?
>
> Yes, absolutely. However, I don't think it's appropriate to sell PC
> technology to rice farmers and stuff. They should be concentrating on

> the emerging affluent members of the third world, such as China,
India,
> Southeast Asia, etc.
>
It is going to be a _much_ less profitable business for everyone, but
it will be interesting to watch...maybe. Think of the automobile
industry again.

RM

 

[mygarbage2000]

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

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:44:35 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
>> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
>> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
>> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>
>OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BTR-66, for one. Mass-produced in Russia since mid-1960s up until now
with few changes. 8 wheels, 4 axles, 2 (two) big V-8 engines. One
engine drives odd axles, the other even ones. Even when one engine is
damaged, the vehicle is still operational. But then, it's an armored
personnel carrier, not your everyday commuter. More like a
specialized heavy-duty server than a regular user's desktop, to speak
of analogy.
;-)

>powerful engines than they really need or often use.
>
....snip...
>
>-- Robert
>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <ZTr5e.2599$An2.1405@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> newsan.2005.04.08.02.36.55.365047@att.bizzzz...
> >
> > There is no question that dual cores are a good thing on the desktop
> > (given that they're going to be "free"). The question is how many
> cores
> > are useful. That is, how many of those things in the process window
> can
> > be kept doing something interesting.
>
> Based on 20+ years of PC experience, I think it's safe to say that
> _one_ CPU core is useful in a desktop PC.

One is more useful than zero. Two is more useful than one. Three?
....but at the same price, why not?

> More? What have they (both
> of them been using those dual-CPU Macs for?

Photoshop, video rendering, and prepress, AFAIK.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

In article <sHH5e.3130$yq6.2890@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
horedson@earthlink.net says...
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> newsan.2005.04.09.02.20.44.61407@att.bizzzz...
> > On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:29:41 +0000, Hank Oredson wrote:
> >
> >> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
> >> newsFx5e.8856$c76.6562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
> >>>> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
> >>>> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
> >>>> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
> >>>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
> >>>
> >>> OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
> >>> two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
> >>> powerful engines than they really need or often use.
> >>
> >> I know of one with 4 engines ... think "Utah" and "Salt Flats".
> >> I want my computer to do that (run fast).
> >
> > Ok, I know of computers with a thousand "engines". So?
>
>
> On your desktop?

Do you drive only on the Utah Salt Flats?

--
Keith

>
>

 

[Guest]

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

>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>
>OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
>powerful engines than they really need or often use.

They just get vehicles with engines that have more cylinders V8+

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips lyon_wonder <lyon_wonder@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>>OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>>two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
>>powerful engines than they really need or often use.
>
> They just get vehicles with engines that have more cylinders V8+

Yes, but I see the analogy for cylinders/size being issue
ports and execution units inside the CPU core. The Intel
Pentium4 (P7) is noticably deficient compared with AMD K7 or
even Intel P6, so needs more RPM to make up for low torque.

-- Robert

 

[Guest]

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

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:_Yi6e.408$zq4.259@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips lyon_wonder <lyon_wonder@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>>>OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>>>two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
>>>powerful engines than they really need or often use.
>>
>> They just get vehicles with engines that have more cylinders V8+
>
> Yes, but I see the analogy for cylinders/size being issue
> ports and execution units inside the CPU core. The Intel
> Pentium4 (P7) is noticably deficient compared with AMD K7 or
> even Intel P6, so needs more RPM to make up for low torque.


P6 feels like a big iron flathead six, Pentium 4 like a light aluminum V8.
(For the Brits: "aluminium").

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Hank Oredson <horedson@earthlink.net> wrote:
> P6 feels like a big iron flathead six, Pentium 4 like a
> light aluminum V8. (For the Brits: "aluminium").

Not quite. don't confuse clock with work per clock.

A P6 or K7 is more like a modern V6 while the Pentium 4 is like
a 4 cylinder that someone has revved to 10,000 rpm. They're both
powerful, but how they achieve it is very different.

-- Robert