By: juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com), August 8, 2014 6:40 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Ungo (a.delete@this.b.c.d.e) on August 8, 2014 4:48 pm wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 8, 2014 11:00 am wrote:
> > But some of those companies were showing benchmarks behind the doors. And Nvidia has already admitted
> > in public that those ARM64 CPUs can feed its faster GPGPUs the same than with traditional Xeons.
>
> "Admitted"? You're spinning this as if it's something NVidia only grudgingly accepts,
> and using that spin to imply credibility. But it's actually in NVidia's interests to
> promote this idea. They've spent a lot of money developing ARM SoCs and CPUs.
They are promoting ARM CPUs from other companies, not their Denver project.
I believe Nvidia when they claim that those ARM CPUs will provide performance similar to Xeons. I believe because I know some details of the arch. You don't believe Nvidia. Case closed.
> Your behavior in recent posts is interesting and revealing. When you find that (IIRC) one of three authors
> of a paper you don't like happens to work in the same lab as people funded by Intel, you shout about tenuous
> Intel connections being proof that the paper is ridiculous while providing little substantive criticism
> of the paper's contents. But when it's an idea you want to be true, suddenly this hyperskepticism about
> motives flies out the window and obvious corporate marketing is treated as gospel.
I found the paper in an ordinary search of literature and read it, finding lots of weird stuff and unproven statements. They didn't look arbitrary to me and then, only then, I decided to search further info about the authors and found that the senior author is closely related to Intel, which didn't surprise me because the paper did look as a marketing piece.
I mentioned some issues with this crap paper in a previous post, but as another poster mentioned that the paper was analyzed here before. No need to repeat what was said.
> > If you really believe that those companies will be hiding numbers during next three years expecting people
> > to pay them hundred of thousand of dollars in the base of paper claims then I have very little to add.
>
> If you really believe the private sector never pours billions of dollars down ratholes
> based on paper claims, there's nothing anyone can do to help you wake up, but I'll
> try to explain one aspect of how the real world works to you anyways.
>
> There are tons of investors who make poor investments. Most of them are the very same people
> who make good ones: the tech VC industry operates on the principle of spreading money across many
> high risk / high reward projects. IIRC the failure rate is well over 50%, but successful VCs
> make up for it because the big hits can pay back their original investment many times over.
>
> Now of course these guys usually aren't fools. They don't want to put any money into companies
> that have no hope, and they perform due diligence investigations so they're not relying just on
> personal judgement. But in the end they're going to make some mistakes. It's unavoidable.
>
> Now let's talk about the paper claims. If you're a pile-o-ARMs startup and you think the story
> you've crafted has some VCs on the hook, but you're aware there's some weaknesses in it, the
> last thing you want is publish the numbers. The rest of the world will pick them apart, the
> VCs will realize they've been had, and the next round of VC funding will vanish.
>
> Maybe you even believe you'll be competitive in the long run after another product generation or two, so
> you're hiding today's numbers to stay in the race. Maybe you're even honest about this with your VC partners.
> But that's still not a good reason to go public. The unfortunate truth is that honest self assessment
> does not sell in our society. We demand irrational self confidence from corporations and leaders and athletes
> and everyone else, so there's a strong pressure to hide bad results with spin and innuendo.
>
> When you tell yourself that the people doubting these unverifiable stories of ARM server superiority must
> be crazy because real money is being spent on ARM servers, you're not doing yourself any favors at all.
>
I know that there people with strong financial interests that spread misinformation against ARM in forums, blogs, and some sites for investors.
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 8, 2014 11:00 am wrote:
> > But some of those companies were showing benchmarks behind the doors. And Nvidia has already admitted
> > in public that those ARM64 CPUs can feed its faster GPGPUs the same than with traditional Xeons.
>
> "Admitted"? You're spinning this as if it's something NVidia only grudgingly accepts,
> and using that spin to imply credibility. But it's actually in NVidia's interests to
> promote this idea. They've spent a lot of money developing ARM SoCs and CPUs.
They are promoting ARM CPUs from other companies, not their Denver project.
I believe Nvidia when they claim that those ARM CPUs will provide performance similar to Xeons. I believe because I know some details of the arch. You don't believe Nvidia. Case closed.
> Your behavior in recent posts is interesting and revealing. When you find that (IIRC) one of three authors
> of a paper you don't like happens to work in the same lab as people funded by Intel, you shout about tenuous
> Intel connections being proof that the paper is ridiculous while providing little substantive criticism
> of the paper's contents. But when it's an idea you want to be true, suddenly this hyperskepticism about
> motives flies out the window and obvious corporate marketing is treated as gospel.
I found the paper in an ordinary search of literature and read it, finding lots of weird stuff and unproven statements. They didn't look arbitrary to me and then, only then, I decided to search further info about the authors and found that the senior author is closely related to Intel, which didn't surprise me because the paper did look as a marketing piece.
I mentioned some issues with this crap paper in a previous post, but as another poster mentioned that the paper was analyzed here before. No need to repeat what was said.
> > If you really believe that those companies will be hiding numbers during next three years expecting people
> > to pay them hundred of thousand of dollars in the base of paper claims then I have very little to add.
>
> If you really believe the private sector never pours billions of dollars down ratholes
> based on paper claims, there's nothing anyone can do to help you wake up, but I'll
> try to explain one aspect of how the real world works to you anyways.
>
> There are tons of investors who make poor investments. Most of them are the very same people
> who make good ones: the tech VC industry operates on the principle of spreading money across many
> high risk / high reward projects. IIRC the failure rate is well over 50%, but successful VCs
> make up for it because the big hits can pay back their original investment many times over.
>
> Now of course these guys usually aren't fools. They don't want to put any money into companies
> that have no hope, and they perform due diligence investigations so they're not relying just on
> personal judgement. But in the end they're going to make some mistakes. It's unavoidable.
>
> Now let's talk about the paper claims. If you're a pile-o-ARMs startup and you think the story
> you've crafted has some VCs on the hook, but you're aware there's some weaknesses in it, the
> last thing you want is publish the numbers. The rest of the world will pick them apart, the
> VCs will realize they've been had, and the next round of VC funding will vanish.
>
> Maybe you even believe you'll be competitive in the long run after another product generation or two, so
> you're hiding today's numbers to stay in the race. Maybe you're even honest about this with your VC partners.
> But that's still not a good reason to go public. The unfortunate truth is that honest self assessment
> does not sell in our society. We demand irrational self confidence from corporations and leaders and athletes
> and everyone else, so there's a strong pressure to hide bad results with spin and innuendo.
>
> When you tell yourself that the people doubting these unverifiable stories of ARM server superiority must
> be crazy because real money is being spent on ARM servers, you're not doing yourself any favors at all.
>
I know that there people with strong financial interests that spread misinformation against ARM in forums, blogs, and some sites for investors.