By: tecate (tecate.delete@this.devil.com), February 3, 2003 9:05 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Hmm sounds like your AMD stock isn't doing too well.
Kate
hobold (hobold@informatik.uni-bremen.de) on 2/3/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 2/2/03 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>As of 1:42am, CST, Paul DeMone's new article, The Battle in 64 bit Land, 2003 and
>>Beyond is now up. It's a great read, and I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did.
>>
>I bet his fellow Intel shareholders will enjoy it a lot ...
>
>But first, credit where credit is due. Paul has done great
>work as usual: the article is complete, detailed, based on
>sound data, and very well written.
>
>However, it is not unbiased. The bias is subtle, though,
>and I don't want the following observations to be regarded
>as an accusation.
>
>Observation 1: the author is very selective when giving
>benefit of doubt to anyone. It is actually one of his
>strong points to always stick to hard facts. He breaks his
>own rule when he speculates about Intel's failure to reach
>their own projected frequency target for Itanium-2.
>
>Observation 2: the author is very careful not to spread
>Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. It is actually one of his
>strong points to always stick to hard facts. He breaks his
>own rule a few times, for instance when he conjures up
>images of an agonizing AMD.
>
>Observation 3: the author sometimes uses very different
>presentations for very comparable situations. For example
>he goes to great length to explain conceptual limitations
>of IBM's Power4 core, which he explicitly relates to
>limitations of VLIW architectures. When he does present
>VLIW processors as sold by Intel, though, he merely names
>in passing their much stricter conceptual limitation of
>being in-order-execution designs.
>
>Another example is the paragraph where the author laudes
>the Alpha design team (now employed at Intel as he
>mentions) and muses about the mythical improvements these
>demigods of the semiconductor world will bring to future
>implementations of Intel's 64 bit architecture. The other
>half of ex-Alpha designers, who happen to work at AMD, are
>doomed to oblivion.
>
>Yet another example can be seen when the author talks about
>the practice of leveraging existing chip designs for future
>derivatives. Both HP and SGI are presented as slow and
>undedicated, because they were using the same basic CPU
>core design for a sequence of products. The author even
>subtlely ridicules SGI by calling this timespan 'half a
>decade'. Intel, however, is not at all blamed for the fact
>that their roadmap uses the Itanium-2 core for four years.
>
>I could make a few more minor points, but those would have
>to be about things so subtle as to be virtually
>nonexistant. As I said, this is not an accusation; I know
>very well how hard it is to notice and avoid one's own
>bias (the few who know me can tell I am biased as well to
>PowerPC in general and Motorola's chips in particular).
>
>I would expect, though, that the author's credibility
>would be helped a lot if he'd choose to mention his
>interest in Intel stock value in some legible footnote.
>Especially considering the reach of publications like RWT.
>Otherwise, more suspicious people than me might devalue
>the author's competent writings and regard them merely as
>elaborate pieces of Intel marketing.
>
>Holger Bettag
>
Kate
hobold (hobold@informatik.uni-bremen.de) on 2/3/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 2/2/03 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>As of 1:42am, CST, Paul DeMone's new article, The Battle in 64 bit Land, 2003 and
>>Beyond is now up. It's a great read, and I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did.
>>
>I bet his fellow Intel shareholders will enjoy it a lot ...
>
>But first, credit where credit is due. Paul has done great
>work as usual: the article is complete, detailed, based on
>sound data, and very well written.
>
>However, it is not unbiased. The bias is subtle, though,
>and I don't want the following observations to be regarded
>as an accusation.
>
>Observation 1: the author is very selective when giving
>benefit of doubt to anyone. It is actually one of his
>strong points to always stick to hard facts. He breaks his
>own rule when he speculates about Intel's failure to reach
>their own projected frequency target for Itanium-2.
>
>Observation 2: the author is very careful not to spread
>Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. It is actually one of his
>strong points to always stick to hard facts. He breaks his
>own rule a few times, for instance when he conjures up
>images of an agonizing AMD.
>
>Observation 3: the author sometimes uses very different
>presentations for very comparable situations. For example
>he goes to great length to explain conceptual limitations
>of IBM's Power4 core, which he explicitly relates to
>limitations of VLIW architectures. When he does present
>VLIW processors as sold by Intel, though, he merely names
>in passing their much stricter conceptual limitation of
>being in-order-execution designs.
>
>Another example is the paragraph where the author laudes
>the Alpha design team (now employed at Intel as he
>mentions) and muses about the mythical improvements these
>demigods of the semiconductor world will bring to future
>implementations of Intel's 64 bit architecture. The other
>half of ex-Alpha designers, who happen to work at AMD, are
>doomed to oblivion.
>
>Yet another example can be seen when the author talks about
>the practice of leveraging existing chip designs for future
>derivatives. Both HP and SGI are presented as slow and
>undedicated, because they were using the same basic CPU
>core design for a sequence of products. The author even
>subtlely ridicules SGI by calling this timespan 'half a
>decade'. Intel, however, is not at all blamed for the fact
>that their roadmap uses the Itanium-2 core for four years.
>
>I could make a few more minor points, but those would have
>to be about things so subtle as to be virtually
>nonexistant. As I said, this is not an accusation; I know
>very well how hard it is to notice and avoid one's own
>bias (the few who know me can tell I am biased as well to
>PowerPC in general and Motorola's chips in particular).
>
>I would expect, though, that the author's credibility
>would be helped a lot if he'd choose to mention his
>interest in Intel stock value in some legible footnote.
>Especially considering the reach of publications like RWT.
>Otherwise, more suspicious people than me might devalue
>the author's competent writings and regard them merely as
>elaborate pieces of Intel marketing.
>
>Holger Bettag
>
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
New Article Available | David Kanter | 2003/02/02 02:44 AM |
Excellent Article, Paul (NT) | Arcadian | 2003/02/02 04:57 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/02 07:53 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/03 12:38 AM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 12:53 AM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Anonymous | 2003/02/03 07:03 AM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 09:13 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Peter Gerassimoff | 2003/02/03 01:38 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Bill Todd | 2003/02/03 03:18 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 10:08 AM |
Opteron SPEC Performance | Arcadian | 2003/02/03 12:15 PM |
Opteron SPEC Performance | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 12:18 PM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/03 01:15 PM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/05 09:23 AM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/05 02:50 PM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | tecate | 2003/02/05 05:09 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/05 06:36 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | Dean Kent | 2003/02/05 07:03 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | tecate | 2003/02/05 09:27 PM |
well it is all about your viewpoint | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/06 12:44 AM |
well it is all about your viewpoint | doriangrey | 2003/02/07 12:39 AM |
Please be a girl. :p | NIKOLAS | 2003/02/06 06:28 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 08:43 AM |
larger cache for POWER4+? | Anil Maliyekkel | 2003/02/03 05:08 AM |
larger cache for POWER4+? | Thu Nguyen | 2003/02/03 06:35 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 07:41 AM |
well written indeed | tecate | 2003/02/03 09:05 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 09:12 AM |
well written indeed | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 09:15 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 12:04 PM |
well written indeed | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 12:58 PM |
about Jim Keller | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 01:50 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 02:22 PM |
Nope but will now (NT) | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 02:50 PM |
patent info... | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 02:52 PM |
about the article... | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 04:49 PM |
Er, I just have to point something out. | Anonymous | 2003/02/04 10:19 PM |
Next time check the date. | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/05 01:10 AM |
Yes, I know it was written in 2000. | Anonymous | 2003/02/05 12:42 PM |
Yes, I know it was written in 2000. | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/05 01:20 PM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/09 01:09 PM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/09 01:40 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/09 02:00 PM |
about Jim Keller | David Wang | 2003/02/09 02:18 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/09 03:47 PM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/10 11:11 AM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/10 12:06 PM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/11 06:53 PM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/11 09:52 PM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/12 11:06 AM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 04:19 PM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/11 11:35 PM |
about Jim Keller | David Kanter | 2003/02/12 12:24 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/12 10:54 AM |
Taxation systems | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 07:23 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Bellusco | 2003/02/13 10:53 AM |
Taxation systems | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 03:47 PM |
Taxation systems | Aleajdnro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/13 05:56 PM |
Taxation systems | Jouni Osmala | 2003/02/14 08:03 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/14 06:13 PM |
Taxation systems | David Kanter | 2003/02/15 12:18 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/15 08:36 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 02:40 PM |
E8870 Chipset | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/04 03:19 PM |
E8870 Chipset | Arcadian | 2003/02/05 01:54 AM |
E8870 Chipset | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/05 09:13 AM |
E8870 Chipset | Arcadian | 2003/02/05 12:49 PM |
Minor question | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/04 03:24 PM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 09:18 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 09:36 AM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 10:33 AM |
hear hear... | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 12:16 PM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 03:02 PM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 04:48 PM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/04 01:56 PM |
well written indeed | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 10:19 AM |
BTW Paul, it was VERY well written... BUT... =) | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 10:25 AM |
Ditto (NT) | William L. | 2003/02/10 08:28 PM |
New Article Available | JS | 2003/02/05 02:09 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Richard Stacpoole | 2003/02/06 05:46 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/06 10:47 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | doriangrey | 2003/02/07 12:41 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | William L. | 2003/02/10 08:34 PM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/10 10:34 PM |
Watch this | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/10 10:42 PM |
excellent article, just a nit or two | mulp | 2003/02/16 12:11 AM |