On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/26/2011 07:25 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 01/25/2011 09:42 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >>>> at 28nm it's going to be... irrelevant that the main RISC CPU is >>>> 74,000 transistors (MIPS 64-bit) because it'll be running at 2ghz, be >>>> running in a quad-core or even 16-core arrangement and... who gives a >>>> damn if an x86 gets even 100% more performance at those kinds of >>>> speeds! especially when x86 does so by having to still be a thousand >>>> times more transistors and so uses vastly more power. >>>> >>>> ... or am i preaching to the converted, here? :) >>> >>> No, you are not preaching to the converted. Underestimating the ability >>> to adapt a specific instruction set to take advantage of manufacturing >>> improvements is something you'd think people would grow out of after 30 >>> years. >>> >>> I'm saying that network effects mean the system with the most users is >>> the one everybody wants to write code for, and the system with the most >>> software is the one everybody wants to use. Costs are almost entirely a >>> question of unit volume, it's all start-up amortized over a production >>> run. When you say "RISC will make chips cheap", you're making arguments >>> that people made 30 years ago and it simply did not happen. >> >> rob - with respect, you are making a lot of assumptions about what >> i've said, and are placing words into my mouth that i haven't said, >> and then making points supporting your position based on that. > > I admit I'm mostly responding to a single phrase from your first > message, and then your defense of that phrase. You said: > >> 45nm and the upcoming 28nm geometry is going to allow SoC RISC CPUs to >> become massively more price as well as power efficient than CISC x86 >> architecture could ever be. > > And saying "oh the competition can't possibly catch up with this huge > advance we've made, our success is guaranteed" is something I find > personally hilarious.
again, i apologise rob - you've once again made an assumption about what i've said, truncated / re-worded it and then made points which support a perspective which is... ok, enough, i'm sorry - i can't carry on a conversation with you when it is necessary to spend significant time going over every misunderstanding. i trust that the proposal is understood by everyone else - no disrespect intended, rob - but if it is not, please do make yourselves known, and please may i respectfully request that people follow the practice of "ask rather than assume". the best phraseology i've ever heard used was a preamble "so i'm going to say what i think you're saying [on this complex technical topic], please kindly correct any assumptions i may have made" and they went ahead and bullet-point-listed what they thought was the case. this allowed the conversation, which was technically quite detailed, to proceed on an amicable and positive footing instead of an adversarial multi-repetitive one. so i apologise - again - rob, but if you'd like to engage in discussion please can i respectfully request that you spend time rewording what you've written into a constructive and less adversarial style, and i will be more than happy to discuss further - otherwise i really will simply have to either ignore you or simply disengage from this forum (even after being on it for only 12 hours), which would be most unfortunate. l. _______________________________________________ Celinux-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tree.celinuxforum.org/mailman/listinfo/celinux-dev
