Is it time to stop research in Computer Architecture ?
|
From: Del Cecchi on 20 Oct 2009 20:13 "Terje Mathisen" <Terje.Mathisen(a)tmsw.no> wrote in message news:yq6dnQM5vqGSy0DXnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d(a)lyse.net... > Del Cecchi wrote: >>> Once upon a time there was an attempt to satisfy "the aims of >>> science / pursuit of excellence". >>> It was called Itanium. Turned out to be a multi-billion dollar >>> flop. >>> No more projects like that please! >> >> Actually that wasn't the aim of Itanium, at least if you are a >> cynic >> like me. Some would say that it was an attempt to create a new >> proprietary architecture that was outside the web of cross >> licensing >> agreements that Intel had. >> >> The notion that it would be better merely had to be plausible in >> order >> to achieve that goal. > > I'm not quite as cynical as you Del, but I still agree: > > The main target of Itanium was to have a "closed-source" cpu that > simply couldn't be cloned at all: > > A new separate (joint venture) company to develop it, making > existing deals with both Intel and HP moot, lots of funky little > patented details that were intentially exposed to the programmer, > making it very much harder to invent around. > > OTOH, I really do believe Intel intended to start deliver in 1997, > in which case it _would_ have been, by far, the fastest cpu on the > planet. When they finally did deliver, years later, it was still the > fastest cpu for dense fp kernels like SpecFP. > > They delivered too little, too late, but still managed to terminate > several competing architecture development tracks at other vendors. I seem to recall that those developments were terminated well before Itanium hardware was actually available, ie MIPS at SGI and Alpha at Compaq/HP. But memory is the second thing to go and I forget what is first. > > Terje > -- > - <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no> > "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
From: Robert Myers on 20 Oct 2009 20:35 On Oct 20, 6:29 pm, EricP <ThatWouldBeTell...(a)thevillage.com> wrote: > Robert Myers wrote: > > People in the sixties had many wild and dangerous ideas that have been > > proven to be dead ends, at best. Many of the ideas about computers > > are in a category with Werner von Braun's rotating donuts, which would > > have been unstable. > > The rotating donut space stations are unstable? > Why? > This is a subject that *does* intimidate me. A torus rotating about its principle axis would be stable were it not for tidal forces. A rotating donut circling the earth will be subjected to torques as one part of the torus is subjected to a stronger pull than the opposite part of the torus. The result, if not counteracted actively, will be tumbling. Robert.
From: Rob Warnock on 20 Oct 2009 22:16 Del Cecchi <delcecchiofthenorth(a)gmail.com> wrote: +--------------- | "Terje Mathisen" <Terje.Mathisen(a)tmsw.no> wrote: | > They delivered too little, too late, but still managed to terminate | > several competing architecture development tracks at other vendors. | | I seem to recall that those developments were terminated well before | Itanium hardware was actually available, ie MIPS at SGI and Alpha at | Compaq/HP. +--------------- That's exactly the point: First, Intel promised the moon. Second, SGI (and maybe Compaq/HP as well) said, "Oh, then there's no point going on with MIPS (or Alpha) -- we'll just use Merced". THEN... Intel was very, very late making Itanium hardware actually available. But by that time, the damage was done. SGI [at least] had frozen their MIPS development for too long to ever catch up with the curve again. (*sigh*) -Rob ----- Rob Warnock <rpw3(a)rpw3.org> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: Terje Mathisen on 21 Oct 2009 01:27 EricP wrote: > Robert Myers wrote: >> People in the sixties had many wild and dangerous ideas that have been >> proven to be dead ends, at best. Many of the ideas about computers >> are in a category with Werner von Braun's rotating donuts, which would >> have been unstable. > > The rotating donut space stations are unstable? > Why? At least if they get big enough, see the various articles about Niven's Ringworld, a donut space station big enough to surround a star at Earthlike (150e9 m) distance. I don't believe a regular-size one without an untethered mass in the center would suffer the same problem. Terje -- - <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
From: Terje Mathisen on 21 Oct 2009 01:28
Del Cecchi wrote: > "Terje Mathisen"<Terje.Mathisen(a)tmsw.no> wrote in message >> They delivered too little, too late, but still managed to terminate >> several competing architecture development tracks at other vendors. > > I seem to recall that those developments were terminated well before > Itanium hardware was actually available, ie MIPS at SGI and Alpha at > Compaq/HP. But memory is the second thing to go and I forget what is > first. :-) Your memory hasn't gone yet: If those competitors had actually waited until Itanium didn't get delivered on schedule, they might have kept their cpu architects. Terje -- - <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching" |