By: Paul A. Clayton (paaronclayton.delete@this.gmail.com), August 16, 2014 10:31 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 15, 2014 9:41 am wrote:
[snip]
> 4. Marketing people talk about Xeon-class performance, but
> then typically end up delivering Xeon E3 performance :)
Why not Xeon Phi performance on Xeon E7-appropriate workloads? ☺
More seriously "Xeon-class" is a very flexible description even ignoring the breadth of the Xeon brand. What constitutes being in the same class with respect to performance (within 5% best-to-best, within 10% median-to-median, within 20% best-to-worst)? What workloads are being considered?
Marketing people will generally use a description that is as positively biased as possible (counterbalanced by credibility and applicability). (Think along the lines of the insect-killing product in the Hustle episode "Conned Out of Luck": 100% lethal, no negative chemical side effects, etc. It was two blocks of wood to be used to squash the insect. I am not suggesting that typical marketing is on the same level as a con, but it is possible to avoid all falsehood and yet deceive.) Being forthright is not generally rewarded and requires considerably more effort and communication time.
The fact that people in the computer field tend to be optimistic and that optimism needs to be high for those introducing a new product means that even an honest presentation of a new computer-related product would tend to be positively biased.
[snip]
> 4. Marketing people talk about Xeon-class performance, but
> then typically end up delivering Xeon E3 performance :)
Why not Xeon Phi performance on Xeon E7-appropriate workloads? ☺
More seriously "Xeon-class" is a very flexible description even ignoring the breadth of the Xeon brand. What constitutes being in the same class with respect to performance (within 5% best-to-best, within 10% median-to-median, within 20% best-to-worst)? What workloads are being considered?
Marketing people will generally use a description that is as positively biased as possible (counterbalanced by credibility and applicability). (Think along the lines of the insect-killing product in the Hustle episode "Conned Out of Luck": 100% lethal, no negative chemical side effects, etc. It was two blocks of wood to be used to squash the insect. I am not suggesting that typical marketing is on the same level as a con, but it is possible to avoid all falsehood and yet deceive.) Being forthright is not generally rewarded and requires considerably more effort and communication time.
The fact that people in the computer field tend to be optimistic and that optimism needs to be high for those introducing a new product means that even an honest presentation of a new computer-related product would tend to be positively biased.
