By: someone (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com), November 17, 2014 3:25 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Patrick Chase (patrickjchase.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 17, 2014 3:02 pm wrote:
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on November 17, 2014 2:00 pm wrote:
> > The 'ASIC designers' would have affected the initial implementation (Merced) but the
> > second generation (McKinley) was designed by the PA-RISC design team. Though I'm not
> > sure how intact they were by that time, your story goes a long way towards explaining
> > why Merced sucked so much, and McKinley was notably superior.
>
> The Ft Collins CPU design group was still fairly intact at that point,
> and IMO that is why McKinley was so much faster than Merced.
>
>
Too bad some folks *opinions* can't be reconciled with the *fact* that the design team
for both chips were heavily staffed by both engineers from Intel and engineers from HP
and both were high custom content designs.
McKinley was much better than Merced because a second implementation learns an awful
lot of lessons from the weaknesses of the first.
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on November 17, 2014 2:00 pm wrote:
> > The 'ASIC designers' would have affected the initial implementation (Merced) but the
> > second generation (McKinley) was designed by the PA-RISC design team. Though I'm not
> > sure how intact they were by that time, your story goes a long way towards explaining
> > why Merced sucked so much, and McKinley was notably superior.
>
> The Ft Collins CPU design group was still fairly intact at that point,
> and IMO that is why McKinley was so much faster than Merced.
>
>
Too bad some folks *opinions* can't be reconciled with the *fact* that the design team
for both chips were heavily staffed by both engineers from Intel and engineers from HP
and both were high custom content designs.
McKinley was much better than Merced because a second implementation learns an awful
lot of lessons from the weaknesses of the first.