Name: Paul DeMone (pdemone@igs.net) 1/18/05
Linus Torvalds (torvalds@osdl.org) on 1/18/05 wrote: --------------------------- >Paul DeMone (pdemone@igs.net) on 1/18/05 wrote: >> >>That depends on whether it uses a merchant chip or house >>processor business model > >I know this is a mantra of yours, but I still don't get >why you think "merchant chip" is so important, and why >you think ia64 is so special wrt "merchant", that it >apparently cannot apply to anybody else.A merchant processor is a processor offered by a vendor whose business model is selling processors to all takers rather than bundled inside a system they sell. This is a clear difference from house RISC model of the 1990s in which Alphas, PA-RISCs, and POWER were generally not sold on the open market and only available in systems from the OEM that owned the architecture. Although some RISCs like Alpha and SPARC were eventually offered to other OEMs there were few takers because of competition issues with the owner. Why is IPF a merchant MPU? 1) Intel sells IPF processors to any interested party. 2) Intel does not sell IPF systems to end users. 3) IPF based systems are available from quite a few different systems OEMs. With the recent move of the HP MPU design team to Intel there is a level playing field among all OEMs, both in perception and in reality. None of the remaining high end RISCs are merchant chips. Although IBM allows other OEMs to resell POWERx gear it doesn't truly offer POWERx components to the open market. And with POWERx primarily an IBM platform even if IBM did offer devices on the open market the reality is few OEMs would try to use POWERx components to compete with IBM for system sales. Even if IBM initially posed a level playing field history suggests the playing field wouldn't stay level very long if competitors started taking away IBM system sales using its own chips. Why is IPF being a merchant so important? Easy, its a more efficient business model and division of labour than the house RISC business model. HW OEMs get out of the increasingly costly processor development business* and share the cost of IPF development with many other OEMs in the price they pay Intel for the processors. In return they get a high end MPU with at least as much RAS, performance, and flexibility as they likely could have afforded in their own design but still retain the opportunity to differentiate and add value to their own products with their unique system design expertise. Their products also present one part of a larger total market to ISVs than would a unqiue, vendor specific ISA. *Including programming tool chains and OS support. |