well written indeed

Article: The Battle in 64 bit Land, 2003 and Beyond
By: Paul DeMone (pdemone.delete@this.igs.net), February 3, 2003 9:15 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
hobold (hobold@informatik.uni-bremen.de) on 2/3/03 wrote:
>I bet his fellow Intel shareholders will enjoy it a lot ...

I think my fellow Intel shareholders are far more
interested in a resolution to the war fears gripping
North American stock markets.

>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.

You keep saying that over and over again but your comments
contradict your protestations of innocence. ;^)

>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.

Go look at the ISSCC papers I referenced. Are you saying
that Intel lied in them?

>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.

I don't think I needed to conjure up anything. Reading
their financial disclosures for the last 18 months paints
the picture quite well.

>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.

I didn't say anything about POWER4 limitations as VLIW
related (VLIWs are invariably in-order machines BTW). I
merely pointed out that IBM took a big short cut in the
way it implemented OOO execution in the POWER4 and it is
demonstratably less efficienct than the issue checking
and dependency tracking instruction by instruction model
used in R1xk, PA-8x00, EV6x, P6, P4, K7, and K8.

>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.

Other half? Perhaps you should try to get a better grip
on the facts. :-)

>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.

That's 5 years and counting. If you believe the vendors
roadmaps then they will be in service for nearly a decade
before being retired. In comparison successors to the
McKinley core have been in development for more than a

>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).

Then I don't understand why you are getting so bent out of
shape over this article. Motorola doesn't make any MPUs
that fit within its scope. Perhaps in the future I'll write
more about the embedded control market.

>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.

I have made no secret of the fact that I am an Intel
share holder, here or at other hardware forums. I guess
I should be flattered that you think my articles could
have any influence at all on the MPU business. Please give
me the benefit of the doubt that my investment decisions
follow my opinions and predictions of the future of the MPU
and semiconductor industry, not the other way around.

Do that and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that
you have genuine concerns to comment about rather than
simple spleen venting of a Motorola enthusiast unable to
come to grips with cold hard reality and resenting anyone
who threatens his thin veneer of denial.

>Holger Bettag
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
New Article AvailableDavid Kanter2003/02/02 02:44 AM
  Excellent Article, Paul (NT)Arcadian2003/02/02 04:57 PM
  Yikes! Slashdotted!Dean Kent2003/02/02 07:53 PM
    Yikes! Slashdotted!Singh, S.R.2003/02/03 12:38 AM
      Yikes! Slashdotted!Dean Kent2003/02/03 12:53 AM
        Yikes! Slashdotted!Anonymous2003/02/03 07:03 AM
          Yikes! Slashdotted!Dean Kent2003/02/03 09:13 AM
  FYI, Paul:Peter Gerassimoff2003/02/03 01:38 AM
    FYI, Paul:Bill Todd2003/02/03 03:18 AM
      FYI, Paul:Marc M.2003/02/03 10:08 AM
        Opteron SPEC PerformanceArcadian2003/02/03 12:15 PM
          Opteron SPEC PerformanceMarc M.2003/02/03 12:18 PM
      i want to see those links pls!! (NT)waitressInGaza2003/02/03 01:15 PM
        i want to see those links pls!! (NT)José Javier Zarate2003/02/05 09:23 AM
          i want to see those links pls!! (NT)waitressInGaza2003/02/05 02:50 PM
            i want to see those links pls!! (NT)tecate2003/02/05 05:09 PM
              gender should be irrelevantwaitressInGaza2003/02/05 06:36 PM
                gender should be irrelevantDean Kent2003/02/05 07:03 PM
                gender should be irrelevanttecate2003/02/05 09:27 PM
                  well it is all about your viewpointwaitressInGaza2003/02/06 12:44 AM
                    well it is all about your viewpointdoriangrey2003/02/07 12:39 AM
                Please be a girl. :pNIKOLAS2003/02/06 06:28 AM
    FYI, Paul:Paul DeMone2003/02/03 08:43 AM
  larger cache for POWER4+?Anil Maliyekkel2003/02/03 05:08 AM
    larger cache for POWER4+?Thu Nguyen2003/02/03 06:35 AM
  well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 07:41 AM
    well written indeedtecate2003/02/03 09:05 AM
      well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 09:12 AM
    well written indeedPaul DeMone2003/02/03 09:15 AM
      well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 12:04 PM
        well written indeedPaul DeMone2003/02/03 12:58 PM
          about Jim KellerMarc M.2003/02/03 01:50 PM
            about Jim KellerPaul DeMone2003/02/03 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 Kent2003/02/03 04:49 PM
              Er, I just have to point something out.Anonymous2003/02/04 10:19 PM
                Next time check the date.Paul DeMone2003/02/05 01:10 AM
                  Yes, I know it was written in 2000.Anonymous2003/02/05 12:42 PM
                    Yes, I know it was written in 2000.Paul DeMone2003/02/05 01:20 PM
              about Jim KellerAlejandro G. Belluscio2003/02/09 01:09 PM
                about Jim KellerDean Kent2003/02/09 01:40 PM
                  about Jim KellerPaul DeMone2003/02/09 02:00 PM
                  about Jim KellerDavid Wang2003/02/09 02:18 PM
                    about Jim KellerPaul DeMone2003/02/09 03:47 PM
                  about Jim KellerInterested in Illinois2003/02/10 11:11 AM
                    about Jim KellerDean Kent2003/02/10 12:06 PM
                      about Jim KellerAlejandro Belluscio2003/02/11 06:53 PM
                        about Jim KellerDean Kent2003/02/11 09:52 PM
                          about Jim KellerAlejandro Belluscio2003/02/12 11:06 AM
                            about Jim KellerInterested in Illinois2003/02/13 04:19 PM
                        about Jim KellerInterested in Illinois2003/02/11 11:35 PM
                          about Jim KellerDavid Kanter2003/02/12 12:24 AM
                          Taxation systemsAlejandro Belluscio2003/02/12 10:54 AM
                            Taxation systemsInterested in Illinois2003/02/13 07:23 AM
                              Taxation systemsAlejandro Bellusco2003/02/13 10:53 AM
                                Taxation systemsInterested in Illinois2003/02/13 03:47 PM
                                  Taxation systemsAleajdnro G. Belluscio2003/02/13 05:56 PM
                                    Taxation systemsJouni Osmala2003/02/14 08:03 AM
                                      Taxation systemsAlejandro G. Belluscio2003/02/14 06:13 PM
                                  Taxation systemsDavid Kanter2003/02/15 12:18 AM
                                    Taxation systemsAlejandro Belluscio2003/02/15 08:36 AM
          well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 02:40 PM
          E8870 ChipsetJosé Javier Zarate2003/02/04 03:19 PM
            E8870 ChipsetArcadian2003/02/05 01:54 AM
              E8870 ChipsetJosé Javier Zarate2003/02/05 09:13 AM
                E8870 ChipsetArcadian2003/02/05 12:49 PM
      Minor questionJosé Javier Zarate2003/02/04 03:24 PM
    well written indeedDean Kent2003/02/03 09:18 AM
      well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 09:36 AM
        well written indeedDean Kent2003/02/03 10:33 AM
          hear hear...Marc M.2003/02/03 12:16 PM
          well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 03:02 PM
            well written indeedDean Kent2003/02/03 04:48 PM
              well written indeedhobold2003/02/04 01:56 PM
    well written indeedMarc 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 AvailableJS2003/02/05 02:09 AM
  Changes in MPU design methodologies?Richard Stacpoole2003/02/06 05:46 AM
    Changes in MPU design methodologies?Paul DeMone2003/02/06 10:47 AM
      Changes in MPU design methodologies?doriangrey2003/02/07 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 thisSingh, S.R.2003/02/10 10:42 PM
  excellent article, just a nit or twomulp2003/02/16 12:11 AM
Reply to this Topic
Body: No Text
How do you spell avocado?