| Author |
Message |
keith
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:32 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:19:16 +0000, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
| Quote: | keith wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:28:58 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
keith wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php
I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine months
in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!
If these cores are the desktop versions rather than Xeon, they were not
planned to be used in SMP, much less in dual core. I'd be interested to
get your spin on why they *would* test the desktop chip SMP.
Spin? Like to load them words, eh? One reason to do SMP testing is that
it's "easy" to test cache coherence with two processors. Two processors
can bang the caches pretty hard against each other.
Do you really think Intel has no SMP verification capabilities? Do they
not "borrow" tools from one organization to another? There's more here
than meets the eye. Someone dropped the ball, big time!
I'm a bit confused. You are talking "verification", but the article
talks about "testing tools and processes".
|
I don't think so. "Testing" is a function of ATE widgets. There
comparatively little development needed to "test" a dual-core
processor. Verification was what the article was referring to.
| Quote: | I thought "verification" meant determining the correctness of the
design, but "testing" often refers to the part of the manufacturing
process that tries to determine whether a newly manufactured chip
conforms to the design.
|
Fine, if you want to skin the onion that thin. Why should it take that
much work to "test" a dual core processor?
| Quote: | In those senses, verification of an SMP design should include simulation
of multiple processors. Testing should apply to each chip separately,
because if you put two or more chips together and the result fails, you
only know that one of a set of chips is bad, not which one it is.
|
One doesn't "test" multiple processors. One tests products. If one has
it together, the "tests" fall out of the verification suites (more or less).
| Quote: | Are you using the words that way? If not, could you define
"verification" and "testing"?
|
I won't argue much with your definitions, just that they're normally
confused. "Verification" includes both simulation and engineering "test"
(we have both "verification" and "hardware verification" groups).
Manufacturing test is something else. Once the design is shown to work,
making sure the one shipped to the customer works is induction. ;-)
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Skybuck Flying
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
"Rob Stow" <rob.stow@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:mAaNe.248366$5V4.83816@pd7tw3no...
| Quote: | icerq4a@spray.se wrote:
keith skrev:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php
I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine
months
in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!
The only amazing thing here is that you don't seem to understand the
article and appear to know nothing about microprocessor development.
Better put on your flame retardant suit.
You, as a newbie to this group with no credentials established
are telling Keith, with well established creds, that he knows
nothing about microprocessor development ?
|
Go look at the variable bit cpu thread, where Keith is trolling as a
mindless donut about "base".
In my book he is a troll.
Bye,
Skybuck
P.S.: Revenge is sweet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hank Oredson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
"Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:debiim$dk$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
<Blahter removed>
| Quote: | In my book he is a troll.
|
Oooh! A little net cop! How cute!
| Quote: | Bye,
Skybuck
P.S.: Revenge is sweet.
|
I'll go away now, cross posting slime.
--
... Hank
http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AD.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:17 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:56:44 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
| Quote: | I think AMD has finally managed to tarnish "Intel Inside."
Finally ? Where have you been hiding for the last 4 or 5 years ?
|
Intel Inside was more about perception than reality. The reality might
have been tarnished for a while, but I'm now noticing too for the first
time that the general perception (outside geekier circles) is finally
taking some damage.
But by the time it really starts to bite, Intel will probably have some
nice Pentium M based stuff to offer and past mistakes will soon be
forgotten.
The main difference I see in perceptions of both AMD and Intel is that the
market will ignore or forget Intels mistakes while punishing AMD for
theirs and won't forget them quickly.
--
Cheers
Anton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:59 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 06:02:12 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:
| Quote: |
"Rob Stow" <rob.stow@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:mAaNe.248366$5V4.83816@pd7tw3no...
icerq4a@spray.se wrote:
keith skrev:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php
I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine
months
in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!
The only amazing thing here is that you don't seem to understand the
article and appear to know nothing about microprocessor development.
Better put on your flame retardant suit.
You, as a newbie to this group with no credentials established
are telling Keith, with well established creds, that he knows
nothing about microprocessor development ?
Go look at the variable bit cpu thread, where Keith is trolling as a
mindless donut about "base".
|
Really? You propose a bit of marker per bit of data and you complain
about people suggesting that base-2 may not be ideal? You then go on to
swear, bitch, and moan (the latter only in your more lucid moments), and
then complain that peoplae call _you_ a waste? Note folks that I'm not
alone.
| Quote: | In my book he is a troll.
|
I suggest a google on sky, if you want a definition of a troll.
| Quote: | Bye,
Skybuck
P.S.: Revenge is sweet.
|
Revenge? Please!
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:04 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:07:28 +0200, Niels Jørgen Kruse wrote:
| Quote: | keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:59:19 -0700, icerq4a wrote:
keith skrev:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php
I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine months
in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!
The only amazing thing here is that you don't seem to understand the
article and appear to know nothing about microprocessor development.
Uh, right. Since that's (microprocessor development) what I do for a
living, I suggest that *you* read the article again. This time you
might try reading for comprehension. Intel blew it big time, as did you.
Mudslinging apart, the admission is not new. It is a long time ago that
Intel top brass talked about a sudden 90 degree right turn.
|
After the Itanic hits the iceberg the captain orders a 90 degree turn?
....good plan!
| Quote: | What is new, is that we now know that Intel wanted to be able to match
cores with the same performance per watt in a package. Without that
ability, you have to disable the core that runs, but not well enough. Or
waste a good core. We now know that that package is cheaper for Intel
than disabling a core.
|
Huh? I don't follow that paragraph at all. One wants to run *both*
cores. Otherwise what's the point?
Intel's stacking two cores in an MCM and calling it a "dual core" tells
all. They were caught with their pants down, even after *knowing* what
the score was for a couple of years.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niels Jørgen Kruse
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
| Quote: | Intel's stacking two cores in an MCM and calling it a "dual core" tells
all. They were caught with their pants down, even after *knowing* what
the score was for a couple of years.
|
No, the package wasn't ready so they had to put both on the same die.
Why don't you read the article?
--
Mvh./Regards, Niels Jørgen Kruse, Vanløse, Denmark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maynard Handley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
In article <1124759955.5ac4d47b325f1544b017abd64aa9d22e@teranews>,
"AD." <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:56:44 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
I think AMD has finally managed to tarnish "Intel Inside."
Finally ? Where have you been hiding for the last 4 or 5 years ?
Intel Inside was more about perception than reality. The reality might
have been tarnished for a while, but I'm now noticing too for the first
time that the general perception (outside geekier circles) is finally
taking some damage.
But by the time it really starts to bite, Intel will probably have some
nice Pentium M based stuff to offer and past mistakes will soon be
forgotten.
The main difference I see in perceptions of both AMD and Intel is that the
market will ignore or forget Intels mistakes while punishing AMD for
theirs and won't forget them quickly.
--
Cheers
Anton
|
This question of perceptions is an interesting one.
I remember ten years ago I thought of Sony as a premium brand; when I
had to buy a TV or a VCR my default assumption was to buy Sony (and pay
a little more) unless there were a compelling reason not to.
A series of US-management-style clusterfucks over the last ten years
have, in my mind, completely destroyed that perception. Now if I have to
buy an electronics item either Sony just doesn't make something that
doesn't suck (iPod space), or I'll compare them with someone like
Samsung (flat panel, DVD player), and chances are Samsung will win.
The last Sony thing I bought (a pair of small speakers) while they
looked very cool, were basically all look and no substance; they were
too wimpy in power output to do the job I needed, which didn't do much
to improve my perception of them. When it came to buying some high-end
noise-cancelling headphones, the net reviews agreed: go with Bose and
don't waste your time on Sony.
My question then is:
(1) The readers of this group are probably more tech savvy than average,
so would you say that you have followed my downward opinion of Sony over
the past 10 yrs?
(2) Now, going into the wider population, do you think Sony has fallen
from a premium brand to just one among many?
(Oh, I suspect that Disney, in a different demographic, has undergone
the same sort of slide as Sony over about the same period.)
As for improvement of a brand, it's obviously possible. Apple has
certainly done so in the last few years, and before them I think IBM did
so. So I think Intel probably could improve their brand quality, but
also that they have reached the point where it won't happen with a
louder volume of ads, that it will actually require a period of
sustained products that are actually better than AMD in some way, to do
so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YKhan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
Yeah sure, my opinion of Sony has gone down too. But even back in its
heyday I was never one to go around buying Sony when there were
equivalent but cheaper products from JVC, Panasonic and others to
choose from. In fact, I don't think I have or ever had a Sony of
anything -- which is probably kind of telling of my personality, I
guess.
Regarding Intel's brand degradation, it's a little different. It's
competing against a brand that doesn't advertise (at least to the same
level). I think AMD is doing the right thing here, which they weren't
before. Nowadays they're trying to appeal to the IT professional, and
the high-performance gaming enthusiast, and building its reputation
top-down. In the past it was trying to sell everything for cheaper than
Intel, and all they were getting were the cheapskates who don't really
care about brandnames anyways.
Yousuf Khan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Schwartz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 24, 2005 7:02 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.23.02.04.28.134199@att.bizzzz...
| Quote: | Intel's stacking two cores in an MCM and calling it a "dual core" tells
all. They were caught with their pants down, even after *knowing* what
the score was for a couple of years.
|
First of all, they didn't do that. Second of all, a "dual core" is two
processors in one physical package.
DS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Todd
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
David Schwartz wrote:
....
a "dual core" is two
| Quote: | processors in one physical package.
|
Not by any current definition that I'm aware of: it is, rather, two
cores on a single chip.
Do you call POWER an '8-core' processor because that's how many cores
its high-end systems have in one physical package?
- bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
Maynard Handley <name99@name99.org> writes:
| Quote: | This question of perceptions is an interesting one.
I remember ten years ago I thought of Sony as a premium brand; when
I had to buy a TV or a VCR my default assumption was to buy Sony
(and pay a little more) unless there were a compelling reason not
to. A series of US-management-style clusterfucks over the last ten
years have, in my mind, completely destroyed that perception. Now if
I have to
|
The death of Sony Snr. Watch Honda going the same way, for the same
reasons.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skybuck Flying
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:39 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.23.01.59.25.311204@att.bizzzz...
| Quote: | On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 06:02:12 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:
"Rob Stow" <rob.stow@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:mAaNe.248366$5V4.83816@pd7tw3no...
icerq4a@spray.se wrote:
keith skrev:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php
I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine
months
in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!
The only amazing thing here is that you don't seem to understand the
article and appear to know nothing about microprocessor development.
Better put on your flame retardant suit.
You, as a newbie to this group with no credentials established
are telling Keith, with well established creds, that he knows
nothing about microprocessor development ?
Go look at the variable bit cpu thread, where Keith is trolling as a
mindless donut about "base".
Really? You propose a bit of marker per bit of data and you complain
about people suggesting that base-2 may not be ideal? You then go on to
swear, bitch, and moan (the latter only in your more lucid moments), and
then complain that peoplae call _you_ a waste? Note folks that I'm not
alone.
|
You still haven't explained why base 2 would not be ideal !
As long as you don't explain it you remain a troll.
Plain and simple.
| Quote: |
In my book he is a troll.
I suggest a google on sky, if you want a definition of a troll.
Bye,
Skybuck
P.S.: Revenge is sweet.
Revenge? Please!
--
Keith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skybuck Flying
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:40 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
"Hank Oredson" <horedson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mpcOe.9266$Wi6.9188@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | "Skybuck Flying" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:debiim$dk$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
Blahter removed
In my book he is a troll.
Oooh! A little net cop! How cute!
|
Nope, just pointing out a troll when I see one.
| Quote: |
Bye,
Skybuck
P.S.: Revenge is sweet.
I'll go away now, cross posting slime.
|
Now go fuck Keith the donkey fucker lol.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:17:59 +1200, "AD." <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:56:44 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
I think AMD has finally managed to tarnish "Intel Inside."
Finally ? Where have you been hiding for the last 4 or 5 years ?
Intel Inside was more about perception than reality. The reality might
have been tarnished for a while, but I'm now noticing too for the first
time that the general perception (outside geekier circles) is finally
taking some damage.
But by the time it really starts to bite, Intel will probably have some
nice Pentium M based stuff to offer and past mistakes will soon be
forgotten.
|
"Probably"?... maybe?:-)
| Quote: | The main difference I see in perceptions of both AMD and Intel is that the
market will ignore or forget Intels mistakes while punishing AMD for
theirs and won't forget them quickly.
|
Why would that be?... because Intel is bigger? I don't see that as an
advantage as far as public popularity goes. Or is it because AMD is seen
as an intruder/pretender/copyist? If that, it is something which could
easily be repaired by exposing AMD's true history of real innovation in the
processor industry dating back to the early 80s.
Intel's mistakes have all resulted from allowing marketing depts the power
to guide product technical direction - I don't see that changing much and
in fact they're girding up to do it again; we'll see if AMD suffers from
the same hubris but so far it still looks pretty good.
--
Rgds, George Macdonald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in