well written indeed

Article: The Battle in 64 bit Land, 2003 and Beyond
By: hobold (hobold.delete@this.informatik.uni-bremen.de), February 3, 2003 12:04 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Paul DeMone (pdemone@igs.net) on 2/3/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>I think my fellow Intel shareholders are far more
>interested in a resolution to the war fears gripping
>North American stock markets.
>
You are distracting. What do you think, will they or won't
they like your article? (Assuming they have the background
necessary to follow you.)

>>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. ;^)

People tend to notice the unfairness of rethorics a lot
better when it's used against them. Some learn from the
experience. Others don't need to change their behaviour
because they were consciously employing their rethorics.

>>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?
>
I say that you give them the benefit of doubt. Not for a
moment do you think that maybe paperwork is just paperwork,
and that real silicon is what counts.

If you have any hard facts on your theory that Intel was
held back by their customers ("Hell no! Don't give us more
computing power!") then simply present those facts; no need
to speculate.

>>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.
>
Actually it doesn't. Later on you say yourself that AMD
would likely be bought out if they should run out of money.
Opteron would be a part of the competitive landscape no
matter how healthy AMD is or isn't. Look at how Alpha still
embarrasses everyone else (the chip, not the company).

>I didn't say anything about POWER4 limitations as VLIW
>related (VLIWs are invariably in-order machines BTW).

I quote from your article:

Instead it collects together up to 5 instructions at a time
and then issues, tracks, and retires them as a group, kind
of like a VLIW instruction.

End of quote.

>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.
>
I remember you preaching how silly it is to focus on
isolated implementation details when overall performance is
what counts (for example when people criticized P4 for its
pipe length and the associated penalties). Now you do that
yourself, not knowing what reasoning has lead IBM engineers
to this architecture.

>>
>>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. :-)
>
OK, who designed K7 and K8?

(BTW, by the same unproven logic one could say that the EV8
team has a track record of vapourware, because they didn't
ever produce silicon. Statements like this have the form of
logic deduction, but they are not valid conclusions.)

>>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
>year.
>
Being in development for more than a year means that
they'll be here in another four years, best case.

[...]

>Then I don't understand why you are getting so bent out of
>shape over this article.

The latest article was only the drop that caused the
barrel to spill (I guess english speakers will understand
this supposedly foreign figure of speech).

> 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'd look forward to it. When you write about things that
Intel's got nothing to do with, only the positive qualities
of your writings remain.

[...]

>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.

Where do active shareholders hunt for inside info? I bet it
isn't the trade press.

>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.
>
I never doubted this. That's why I made a point about
saying there is no evidence that you bias your writings
intentionally. (Even if it seems I suggest otherwise, my
goal is that people think about bias, not that they favour
my bias over yours.)

But now that those investment decisions are made, they
_will_ in turn influence your hopes and views of the
market.

>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.
>
Oh, I bet I am under heavy influence of some reality
distortion field. But not when the subject is
_high_performance_ 64 bit computing. Not even Steve Jobs'
nimbus coupled with my utter ignorance can reach that far. :-)

As I replied to Dean Kent, I don't argue with the facts. My
point is that some of your conclusions have more than a
healthy dose of interpretation in it. And your writing
suffers from it.

Call me egoistic, but I liked your early RWT articles so
much better than the newer ones that I am angry about the
writer you are today, because he has replaced the writer
you were.

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
Name:
Email:
Topic:
Body: No Text
How do you spell purple?