Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 20:24:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> To: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, kdrobnac@mission.mvnc.edu Subject: Re: Intel Merced FreeBSD??? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908282011280.369-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <199908271229.IAA35280@lakes.dignus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Thomas David Rivers wrote: > First - let me point out that FreeBSD already runs on the Alpha, > so there's some 64-bit experience. Very good point, which ought to be brought out more than once, it's good for the rep. > And - let me add - Intel has been down this path before > (the i860) - and didn't see the success it wanted (although > the i860 is popping up in some interesting places now...) I am going to say something controversial here, but I'm interested in the reply.... When I was in the computer architecture classes, I did a lot of modeling of various kinds of things that could be done to speed up a processor (the least of which is cache memory, but it stands as a good "for instance" thing here). One thing that impressed me, when doing modelling of multiple different things like speculative execution and the IA64's rumored ability to speculatively execute several different paths of loop, was the extreme difficulty to adequately model how all the different parts work (and mis-work) together. You end up having to really inspect many megabytes of output in detail, just to figure out if one feature worked right in one particular scenario, and I was only doing a relatively basic piece of modelling. Trying to model the IA64 would have been a Manhattan Project sized task. Honestly, I am wondering about Intel and HP's ability to really produce a reliable chip that had as many difficult-to-model features as the IA64 is supposed to have. I think that's the real reason that it's not actually being sampled. Your point on the 860 is very correct, but if they *could* have brought the IA64 out today with the features that they have been promising (at the speed they promised) it would have made the PowerPC and the Alpha look ill, and I *do* think it would have been quite a masterstroke by Intel, merely because the monstrous resources needed for a competitor to do the same would have guaranteed Intel at least a very good running start on the market. This makes me believe, more than ever, that everything that Intel has put out on the IA64 (and, at least in academic circles, that's a whole lot) has been vaporware and FUD. I can't respect them for that. > > I suppose what this "rant" is all about is that I'm not > convinced Merced is the "chip of the future" that we all > need to be worried about. I'm taking a "wait-and-see" > attitude. [Also, since Microsoft has been working > closely with Intel regarding Merced for several years > now, and has yet to do anything `serious' - I believe > they are taking the same "wait-and-see" approach. Likely > while telling Intel otherwise.] > > That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't have a FreeBSD port; > I would considering buying a Merced box if there was one > (although, I don't have an Alpha box, so maybe it would > never get past "consider".) > > - Dave Rivers - > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > ---------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@picnic.mat.net | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | picnic.mat.net: FreeBSD/i386 (301) 220-2114 | jaunt.mat.net : FreeBSD/Alpha ---------------------------+----------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9908282011280.369-100000>