I once actually learned something from this group

R

Robert Myers

I came here a bit before the P4. The architecture of P4 seemed right
to me: highly-pipelined, clocked fast, and with big bandwidth to
memory. I didn't really understand about the trace cache, but I soon
learned. I was an early adopter, and I was disappointed.

The reasons for my disappointment are too many to go into. For one
thing, I didn't understand what a bodge the Camino chipset was. What
perplexed me most, though, was the P4's abysmal performance on tasks
like compiling gcc.

The responses to my perplexity could be divided into two classes:
Intel bashers, and those who actually knew something. As far as I can
remember, the only one who actually knew anything was David Wang (Dean
Kent was probably knowledgeable, but I don't remember learning much
from him). David's initial response to me was "you idiot," but after
some private communication, I got on track to learn some things. I
renewed my membership in the ACM. I started reading papers. The P4's
problem (as at least some know) is its endless pipeline that doesn't
buy it as much as Intel had hope in clock speed overhead. How much it
costs and what can be done about it produced a lot of interesting
work, until Intel finally just gave up and went back to a P3 design,
which they probably never should have abandoned.

I haven't learned any of this from anyone here but David Wang. I've
listened to the actual P4 architect come clean on the subject and I've
talk to people who know a *lot* more about P4 programming than anyone
here. Everyone else is stroking their own ego or perhaps some body
part.

The problems of the P4 were my entry into learning something about
computer architecture other than the Cray 1, and it started here.
Because of all of the screaming and bellowing about John Corse and
Rambus, I never learned as much from David Wang about Rambus as I
think I could have. More generally, my knowledge of the actual
mechanics of memory and memory controllers and what might be done
about it is still weak. The railing here about AMD and Intel has
produced only venom, personal accusations, billowing clouds of smoke,
and exercises in ego that would make a professional tennis player
blush.

As a result of my investigations into the P4, I became interested in
Itanium, whose problems are related. Neither chip is what you would
call agile. They do well with predictable code (as do stream
processors), but they cope very badly with surprises. As a result of
my public musings on Itanium, I've given invited talks on the subject
to real computer architects, not just to those who play them on
usenet.

Because I once learned something here, I stupidly keep coming back.
As a result of much more reading in the professional literature and
talking to really smart people (none here), I have actually learned a
few things. The time has come, really, to give up. I don't need the
wisdom of people who know how to use a desoldering station. Nor do I
need their contempt. It's too bad, really. Real World Tech has its
own problems, but, if I'm going to find David Wang, for example, he
won't be here.

The people who are bent on showing me something or other about my
personality or some other personal thing about me are just wasting my
time, theirs, and everyone else's. If you don't get the way in which
I am bright, and I am, then stop showing how clueless you are by
trying to tell me how witless I am.

Robert.
 
R

Robert Myers

You're just too smart for us, man.  

After all, no one else figured-out that we'd all be better-off if it
not for AMD, since they drained Intel of resources that otherwise
would have allowed them to do IA64 right.  

No one else figured-out that the world really hasn't realized massive
cost and performance gains, directly attributable to the Intel/AMD
competition and the success of AMD64.

You're stuck in a mental rut. Who cares if PC's go 50% faster? The
problems are elsewhere. So, no, your insight doesn't impress me.
Even were Itanium and NetBurst the worse architectures, we'd be making
more fundamental progress by continuing to struggle with the problems
they create. The approach that has won out is about "installed base,"
more than anything else. We'll continue to get badly-written code, so-
so compilers, and general cluelessness about the nitty-gritty of
computing.

If the goal is to design a chip for existing awful code, x86 with a
short pipeline and the lowest possible hardware latency wins. That's
the way of the world, which is different from being smart.

In any case, I''m *really* tired of hearing about it. You're like a
broken record.

Robert.
 
R

Robert Myers

Robert Myers wrote:

It's price/performance that is the "bottom line".  So, "who cares" if
Intel has no serious competition, so are allowed to feed us
overpriced, mediocre products?  

We care.  The world cares.  Sheesh.
In reality it matters to hardly anyone. Those who really need muscle
have only one way to go, which is multiple cores. In that case, 50%
more cores isn't all that different from 50% better performance from a
single core.
What "problems" are you referring to?  The "problems" you find
technically interesting, or the "problems" the real world faces,
trying to get the job done in the most efficient manner?
The real problems have very little to do with hardware. The hardware
that has evolved simply enables the bad habits of the world of
computer software.
Says you.  That's absurd, says me.

For a few academics, the challenge of making a k00l-enough compiler to
make IA64 kick ass may be very interesting.  Meanwhile, the hundreds
of millions of PC users are making *real* progress with great products
like the C2D.  

You might say "maybe in the long run we'd be better-off with the kool
compiler technology".  I would respond "maybe not".  Maybe it's a
complete dead-end, like Netburst (which, in hindsight, was a *really*
bad idea).  Maybe, when CPU's with 64 cores are being made, IA64 will
look to be similarly wrong-headed.
The only thing you can say about Itanium at this point is that it
didn't work the way it was expected to. We'll probably never really
understand why. There was more than one dead-end in the pursuit of
the ideas around Itanium. If you never encounter dead-ends though, I
say it means you are not being sufficiently adventurous.

The chief architect for P4 has said that he expected to backfill the
original design into something more respectable but that, yes, it was
rushed out only to get the clock rate up. For some really fundamental
reasons, running much faster to get the same or only slightly better
performance seems on the face of it to be a really, really dumb thing
to do, except possibly from the POV of selling chips, at least in the
short haul.

Better compiler technology is not a dead end.

Robert.
 
A

aku ankka

Robert Myers wrote:
Well, the issue of "how terrible it is that we are locked in to X86"
keeps coming-up.

More like locked to Windows. I don't have that x86-lock-in issue with
any UNIX / BSD / Linux box I've ever had. It just keeps coming up that
the x86 offers a good value, anything comparable on other
architectures would be more expensive with less hardware support for
peripherals and add-on codec's and other sugar coatings. :(
 
A

aku ankka

Well, the issue of "how terrible it is that we are locked in to X86"
keeps coming-up.

Forgot also that x86 isn't the best selling processor on the market..
just on laptops and desktops, I recall seeing that the ARM and such
sell a lot more units. Could be wrong.. anyone cares to contest that?
 
R

Robert Myers

Forgot also that x86 isn't the best selling processor on the market..
just on laptops and desktops, I recall seeing that the ARM and such
sell a lot more units. Could be wrong.. anyone cares to contest that?

If you include embedded processors, I think the 8051 or 8051-
compatible chips might (would?) win.

Robert.
 
R

Robert Myers

More like locked to Windows. I don't have that x86-lock-in issue with
any UNIX / BSD / Linux box I've ever had. It just keeps coming up that
the x86 offers a good value, anything comparable on other
architectures would be more expensive with less hardware support for
peripherals and add-on codec's and other sugar coatings. :(

In any case, the relevant monopolist is Microsoft, not Intel. Even
Microsoft no longer has control, though, as it no longer has the
capacity to order the entire world to rewrite everything for a new
version of Windows.

Robert.
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

aku said:
Forgot also that x86 isn't the best selling processor on the market..
just on laptops and desktops, I recall seeing that the ARM and such
sell a lot more units. Could be wrong.. anyone cares to contest that?

The ARM is the basis of most cellphones, so just by that platform alone
it is the biggest selling chip architecture family. However, that does
not mean that it is the architecture with the most applications. X86
architecture has the most, likely followed by the Sparc architecture.
For that matter most general purpose processor architectures have more
applications than the ARM, because ARM is used with a lot of proprietary
platforms, since every cellphone maker wants to be different than their
competition, so they use customized OS and apps.

Yousuf Khan
 
K

Kai Harrekilde-Petersen

Yousuf Khan said:
The ARM is the basis of most cellphones, so just by that platform
alone it is the biggest selling chip architecture family. However,
that does not mean that it is the architecture with the most
applications. X86 architecture has the most, likely followed by the
Sparc architecture. For that matter most general purpose processor
architectures have more applications than the ARM, because ARM is used
with a lot of proprietary platforms,

I understand from one of my colleagues that at least one the hearing
aid companies use ARM as their DSP platform.


Kai
 
K

Kai Harrekilde-Petersen

Robert Myers said:
I came here a bit before the P4.
[snip]

Because I once learned something here, I stupidly keep coming back.
[snip]

The people who are bent on showing me something or other about my
personality or some other personal thing about me are just wasting my
time, theirs, and everyone else's. If you don't get the way in which
I am bright, and I am, then stop showing how clueless you are by
trying to tell me how witless I am.

Robert, besides extolling the size of your brain & ego, what are you
trying to tell us here? Are you preparing to bid us farewell? Then
just do it, instead of rambling about it. If not, then speak plainer,
please.


Kai
 
R

Robert Myers

Robert, besides extolling the size of your brain & ego, what are you
trying to tell us here? Are you preparing to bid us farewell? Then
just do it, instead of rambling about it. If not, then speak plainer,
please.
I can and will respond in kind. I have apparently accomplished
nothing. If you have something to say, leave off your assessment of
my personality. Otherwise, leave your hands off the keyboard.

Robert.



Robert.
 
K

Kai Harrekilde-Petersen

Robert Myers said:
I can and will respond in kind. I have apparently accomplished
nothing.

Indeed. Towards me, at least, you have accomplished exactly nothing,
for you have not made it plain what you're trying to say.
If you have something to say, leave off your assessment of
my personality. Otherwise, leave your hands off the keyboard.

Thank god for the freedom of speech.


Kai
 
R

Robert Myers

Indeed. Towards me, at least, you have accomplished exactly nothing,
for you have not made it plain what you're trying to say.


Thank god for the freedom of speech.

You have made it plain that you do not wish to hear what I have to
say. That is why you do not understand it. There is no artifice of
language to overcome such a barrier.

If comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips is about personalities, or theories
of competition, or some other topic, we should change the name of the
group.

Robert.
 
D

Del Cecchi

Indeed. Towards me, at least, you have accomplished exactly nothing,
for you have not made it plain what you're trying to say.


Thank god for the freedom of speech.

You have made it plain that you do not wish to hear what I have to
say. That is why you do not understand it. There is no artifice of
language to overcome such a barrier.

If comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips is about personalities, or theories
of competition, or some other topic, we should change the name of the
group.

Robert.
-------------------------

I stop in once in a while. This thread mystifies me. It is in a
group "...ibm.pc.hardware.chips" so of course it is about x86 and amd
and intel. What's the point of this thread? There is much to be
learned in the newsgroups if one is willing.

del
 
R

Robert Myers

I stop in once in a while.  This thread mystifies me.  It is in a
group "...ibm.pc.hardware.chips" so of course it is about x86 and amd
and intel.  What's the point of this thread?   There is much to be
learned in the newsgroups if one is willing.

What it's not about is personalities and endless discussions of
theories of competition. Nor is it about anyone here teaching me or
anyone else how to be a better person. Nor is it about the good and
evil of corporations.

Whatever technical content there once was to this group, it is long
gone.

Robert.
 
Y

YKhan

I understand from one of my colleagues that at least one the hearing
aid companies use ARM as their DSP platform.

And by that basis, there's not a lot of applications running on
hearing aids either, other than the main function. :)

Yousuf Khan
 
K

Kai Harrekilde-Petersen

YKhan said:
And by that basis, there's not a lot of applications running on
hearing aids either, other than the main function. :)

A hearing aid is definitely a very 'fixed' platform - you can't
download arbitrary programs to it. But there is running more and more
code on a hearing aid, besides the sound processing - feedback
suppression, coefficient updating, automatic program selection, and
(if you have it) wireless communication protocol.


Kai
 
L

Lee Waun

Yousuf Khan said:
The ARM is the basis of most cellphones, so just by that platform alone it
is the biggest selling chip architecture family. However, that does not
mean that it is the architecture with the most applications. X86
architecture has the most, likely followed by the Sparc architecture. For
that matter most general purpose processor architectures have more
applications than the ARM, because ARM is used with a lot of proprietary
platforms, since every cellphone maker wants to be different than their
competition, so they use customized OS and apps.

Yousuf Khan

ARM is also listed as the processors for all Ipods and most other MP3
players.
 
R

Robert Myers

You're right.  It's OK if Intel monopolizes the market - it matters to
hardly anyone that we all would have to pay more to get less.  

At least Intel would then have the resources they need to accomplish
their goals...

First, the productivity of personal computers is set not by hardware,
but by software. Bloatware can and consistently has consumed any
increase in computing capacity. This is an arrangement that suits
both Microsoft and Intel, as people are forced to go out and buy new
computers and Windows licenses. In practice, a 50% increase in
performance accomplishes no perceptible benefit for the end user. A
revolution in software, including perhaps the unseating of Microsoft,
would benefit nearly everyone.

AMD has successfully challenged Intel with the help of a company that
invented most of the concepts that Microsoft uses to keep users
hogtied--IBM. Thus the easily perceived bias among the IBM'ers here.
Having *IBM* as a credible alternative for high-end microprocessors is
important.

What we have here, though, is a battle among monopolists: IBM, Intel,
and Microsoft. AMD hardly matters, except to the extent that it fits
into IBM's ill-concealed strategy to keep Intel in check.

If you wanted to pick a competitor that threatens monopolies, it would
be Apple, not AMD. Apple *did* play a key role in getting us where we
are, as AMD did not. Apple continues to keep a fire lit under an
otherwise complacent Microsoft. I'm not an Apple user.

The kinds of things that matter to you matter mostly to people like
you: hardware geeks who would no more notice incremental performance
improvements in hardware than do most people if they didn't read those
mind-numbing "benchmarks" that highlight marginal gains.

Robert.
 
R

Robert Myers

ARM is also listed as the processors for all Ipods and most other MP3
players.

Some actual numbers:

http://www.epanorama.net/links/microprocessor.html

<quote>

The small 8-bit chips (little old 8051s and 6805s) are the best-
selling type of processor. This kind of smallprocessors are found
embedded in a wide varierty of electronics devices, ranging from small
gadgets and home equipment control to car electronics.Those small
controllers areflying off the shelves at the rate of more than 3
billion new chips per year(more than half of the microprocessor sale
per units). But they're not very expensive, so they're less than 15%
of the fiscal tonnage.At the opposite end of the scale are-big
surprise-32-bit microprocessors. This category includes PC processors
like Pentium 4 and Athlon, of course, but also dozens of embedded
processors such as PowerPC, 68k, MIPS, and ARM chips. Most (98% or so)
32-bit processors are used in embedded systems, not PCs. ARM-based
chips alone do about triple the volume that Intel and AMD peddle to PC
makers. PC processors are only 2% of all processors in volume, but PC
processors are 50% of all processor sales in money.

</quote>

You just don't see or even know about most of the processors in use.
And the ABI bias (anything but Intel) is painful. Or did someone
really mean to say "32-bit microprocessors" and just forgot to mention
it?

Robert.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top