Intel's 80 core CPU that isn't

TalkBack 1 of 13:

Next »

• Thread View
• Flat View

Can not blame Intel for trying ...

Murph,

On the contrary of almost all of zdnet bloggers I do not have a "silicon provider" of election.
I can not understand why everybody as a sort of a "Silicon Tribe", but maybe this is because I endorsed Linux and Java that runs on almost every Silicon out there. It simply rocks! From embedded to Mega - Machines (126 CPU+)!
I think this combination is unbeatable ( see ... I am also biased but based on technical excellence ... not brand .

Quite frankly I also can not understand the hostility towards Intel versus AMD (and vice-versa), the PPC or whatever Silicon stuff we use to run our Software.
Every computing task as an optimum, a good and a possible solution. The solution always involves:
- Design of the system to optimize the specifications at hand.
- Software Development tools to make the job (this is the Most Important).
- Networking components and hardware components (DB+App servers+networking)
And only after this is established one can choose the Silicon on every single stage.

Of course Intel/AMD can not compete with Cell or T1000 on a number of things. Of course the text you mentioned reveals a great marketdroidism.
But that is what Intel is "forced" to do. They have to please the so called "market agents". And as I already talked about before they are usually the Extreme Ignorant type ...
So I guess the more stupid the comments over "future" technology the better!
The examples are so many that it is difficult to name some, let me see .... I got one: remember Microsoft 5 years ago with the Voice Recognition everywhere ... (by the way, not that I like big blue that much, but IBM was the only at that time to make a working Software for voice recognition and no one spoke about them ... bad marketing ...)
But this is What companies do ... stupid speculation over unproved developments that are nothing but research at the time they speak about them ...
It stays good in the picture ...
It indicates that your company "does" "Research and Development" that will pay itself in the future, possibly a new area where your company will "dominate" the market.... cool uh?
It is a "soundbyte" for the, mainly, investor media. Though it also sticks good with the consumer ...
Although it can be a show off of the incompetence in development of those same technologies, for those who do not understand nothing about it that is simply cool! ... it "sounds good"
Also Intel had already problems in their way ... I would like to remind everyone about the famous Itanium ... the same happened ... where is the compiler for it ??
In the case of multicores the fundamental (apart from the very complicated internal choices for the CPU arquictecture, interconnection and problematic address and data buses ) it is to make a compiler that takes advantage of the CPU functionalities.
That is the most demanding problem in todays CPU industries, and I would dare to say in the computing Industry.
And I also agree that IBM is on the front line of this "next generation" CPU's war. But they started it earlier then everyone.
They have customers that can pay development without returns for years. Intel and AMD can not do that, they operate on the low end of the market.
I do not think we can blame Intel, AMD or whoever for trying to develop something good. Even if they are far away from it.
The news page Murphy forget it... it is for the marketdroids ...

But what worries me about is that although I can go to Yellow Dog Linux and order (sometime soon a PS3 with Linux installed I can not see in any store a normal PC Box with a Cell processor inside?
(You know , with a cheap standard ATX PSU, a hdd, a video card ... you get the idea ... )
Like you mentioned ... they are cheap!
They should make a great great system.
A Cell box could be even cheaper then the Blue-Rayed PS3 !!!
Why can I not see Cell Boxes out there?
The point is quite simple Murphy, we all understand the Intel And AMD right now can not get into the Power 6 and Cell League.
That is not a problem. They sell like hell ...
They have their own market and by the way it is not bad at all.
The problem is that IBM systematically fails to do anything to the masses.
Their only concern is the Big Corporate customers.
They even renegated their own creation like the PC and let Intel/AMD and Microsoft profit from it ...
I really do not think they see the consumer market as a target, although they have a huge number of patents on every single component that runs on our PC's.
They even get rid of the Laptop division (sold to Lenovo) and the HDD division (sold to Hitachi).
Their problem is that they do not have the mindset to serve the consumer market!
The Cell is a perfect example: They have a huge product but it was necessary for a company like Sony (and Microsoft together) to propose the gaming boxes in order to make IBM go ahead with the system.
I might be wrong but IBM would not do it by its own iniciative.
They had to make sure there was a huge company endorsing the stuff ...

So I do not think one can criticize a company that is trying to develop something good just because they are still behind Huge, Big Enormous IBM ...

Remember: there is nothing for the customer like Market Competition ...


Regards,
Pedro

Posted by: p_msac@...   Posted on: 02/21/07 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now