Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
Something about this whole Intel discussion makes me uneasy ... It's that word Moe used: 'efficiency'. I hear it every other day in my own job, and it seems to ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Guru fingal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Birmingham - UK
    Posts
    1,539

    Something about this whole Intel discussion makes me uneasy ... It's that word Moe used: 'efficiency'. I hear it every other day in my own job, and it seems to have a lot of different meanings for different people.

    In the UK public sector, efficiency is a hot topic. A VERY hot topic. The idea is to get the same or greater outputs for fewer inputs, and efficiencies are described in both cash and non-cashable terms. So if my staff work smarter, or my manufacturing processes are 'lean' I can get more for less (cash). Non-cashable? I don't fully understand that part.

    For large corporations though, 'efficiency' just seems to be about cutting jobs. That's not my understanding of how you improve your core business. If you were stupid enough to over-recruit in the first place, then you probably don't have the vision to make things work in the long term anyway.

    Just my cynical 2 pence worth. I think Intel will probably be around in one form or another for a long time, and I'm probably wrong.
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso

  2. #12
    Linux Engineer d38dm8nw81k1ng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by a12ctic
    the c2d series, while it may out perform the a64s by a little, is EXPENSIVE to produce, chips rated at over 2.2ghz yeilds are @ ~5%, not a good sign.
    but that's the thing, they're NOT expensive to produce. they are now built in two parts and put together at the end, reducing wastage and making them cheaper overall. that's part of the reason they're able to undercut AMD with the C2D.
    Here's why Linux is easier than Windows:
    Package Managers! Apt-Get and Portage (among others) allow users to install programs MUCH easier than Windows can.
    Hardware Drivers. In SuSE, ALL the hardware is detected and installed automatically! How is this harder than Windows' constant disc changing and rebooting?

  3. #13
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by a12ctic
    50% of dell is going over to amd (They ordered 2 million), compaq/hp already are using 35-45% amd. Honestly, they are in trouble, the c2d series, while it may out perform the a64s by a little, is EXPENSIVE to produce, chips rated at over 2.2ghz yeilds are @ ~5%, not a good sign.
    Oh damn. The sky is falling. Everyone bail out of Intel. I'm not worried. Do you have any literature to back those numbers up?
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #14
    Linux Enthusiast cousinlucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    676
    Are Intel and AMD the only makers of chips?

  6. #15
    Linux User Dark_Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Around St. Louis
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by cousinlucky
    Are Intel and AMD the only makers of chips?
    No, there are a lot actually. Intel, AMD, and Sun processors are the only one's I've seen used though.
    Two levels higher than a newb.
    (I can search google)

  7. #16
    Linux Guru bigtomrodney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,133
    Don't forget IBM!
    PPC chips are still used a lot, and that's a lot more than Sun chips. Think about it, every Mac for the last 10 years or so up until the intel switch - Every XBox 360 - the upcoming Cell processor for PS3 is a PPC chip with extra 'servant' cores.

  8. #17
    Linux Enthusiast cousinlucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    676
    Sorry, BigTomRodney but I am curious about IBM. Are their chips special? Is that why their computers cost so much?

  9. #18
    Linux Guru fingal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Birmingham - UK
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtomrodney
    Don't forget IBM!
    PPC chips are still used a lot, and that's a lot more than Sun chips. Think about it, every Mac for the last 10 years or so up until the intel switch - Every XBox 360 - the upcoming Cell processor for PS3 is a PPC chip with extra 'servant' cores.
    I was surprised to read that this new super computer which IBM are going to build partly uses Cell processors.
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso

  10. #19
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by cousinlucky
    Sorry, BigTomRodney but I am curious about IBM. Are their chips special? Is that why their computers cost so much?
    In the case of the PowerPC (known simply as POWER in the server world), there is something different about these chips as opposed to their Intel brethren. The first and most significant difference is that the POWER processors are Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC) chips. For a more detailed explanation, take a look here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC

    POWER and SPARC processors are RISC chips. The basic idea is they have less built-in logic on the chip, and instead of hardwiring a complex operation that might rarely be used by programs running on the CPU, they decided to implement that large operation by using several smaller, discrete operations. This offers a boost in code execution speed over Complex Instruction Set Computers (CISC).

    Another difference between PowerPC and Intel-based chips is the order by which they deal with binary numbers. This is generally referred to as "Big Endian, Little Endian". The basic idea is that processors don't have to read binary from one direction or the other (right to left or left to right). Big Endian chips read the most significant digits first (left to right) whereas Little Endian chips read the least significant digits first (right to left). Intel chips are "little endian" while IBM's POWER processors are "big endian". As far as I know, there is no difference in actual performance due to a chip's "endianness".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_endian
    Last edited by techieMoe; 09-08-2006 at 02:43 PM.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  11. #20
    Linux Enthusiast cousinlucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    676
    Thanks for the links TechieMoe!!
    I'll need at least a year to try and figure out and understand their contents, however.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •