Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EricRR who wrote (104447)	6/14/2000 3:34:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "Elmer- Even as an AMD long, I have to agree with you about the Intel compiler. I do quite a bit of time critical c++ and have found the Intel compiler very good. It certainly is faster that the VC++ compiler, but I found this without the MMX and SSE compile flags turned on. These flags don't seem to speed up my program, even though I have some code which should be a good match for MMX. I think that Intel has made a good product, and it is legit for them to use it in benchmarking" Ratbert, this isn't possible. NO ONE uses Intel's compiler except for cheating on benchmarks. Everybody knows that.... EP

To: EricRR who wrote (104447)	6/14/2000 3:38:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Ratbert, <Everyone talks about that CPU's in general are faster than most people need. But there is a very important trend that will counteract this: That software developers will use tools and languages which result in faster development, but slower running.> You make a good point here, but I think the two examples you used to support your point, Java and Transmeta, aren't the best choices. Transmeta, in particular, is heavily reliant on software in order to emulate the x86 architecture and implement the power-conservation features of their Crusoe processor. And Java's performance is very dependent on optimizing the JVM for a particular architecture. Even with an optimized JVM, the performance of Java is still terrible. (And the cross-platform issues still haven't been resolved yet, even years after the Java hype reached its peak.) In both of those examples, performance is much more dependent on software than any of Intel's latest projects (with IA-64 being an exception, of course). I don't think it's fair to say that Intel is making a fundamental mistake, when it's apparent that the competition will also have to rely on software to improve hardware performance. Even AMD's upcoming Sledgehammer will need specific software enhancements, most notably for its 64-bit extensions and RISC-like FPU, in order to fully realize its performance potential. (And even after that, it's probably not going to measure up to the 32-bit performance of Willamette or the 64-bit performance of McKinley.) Tenchusatsu