1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.ARCH

  • Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture

    From John Dallman@21:1/5 to Michael S on Mon Sep 23 21:39:00 2024
    In article <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com>, already5chosen@yahoo.com (Michael S) wrote:

    mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) wrote:
    When only 1 x86 would fit on a die, it really did not mater
    much. I was at AMD when they were designing their memory
    model.

    Why # of CPU cores on die is of particular importance?

    Because multi-core made multi-processor systems commonplace, and far more software started using multiple threads.

    John

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to John Dallman on Mon Sep 30 03:48:36 2024
    On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 21:39 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:

    In article <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com>, already5chosen@yahoo.com (Michael S) wrote:

    Why # of CPU cores on die is of particular importance?

    Because multi-core made multi-processor systems commonplace, and far
    more software started using multiple threads.

    Another interesting factor is that proprietary server software that had
    been licensed by number of CPUs mostly changed to licensing by number of
    CPU *sockets*.

    Not sure how they were strongarmed into giving up revenue like this ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MitchAlsup1@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Mon Sep 30 05:42:05 2024
    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 3:48:36 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 21:39 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:

    In article <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com>, already5chosen@yahoo.com
    (Michael S) wrote:

    Why # of CPU cores on die is of particular importance?

    Because multi-core made multi-processor systems commonplace, and far
    more software started using multiple threads.

    Another interesting factor is that proprietary server software that had
    been licensed by number of CPUs mostly changed to licensing by number of
    CPU *sockets*.

    This is one of the reasons one of my employers stayed with 6 YO
    software rather than switch to SOLARIS....

    Not sure how they were strongarmed into giving up revenue like this ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael S@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Mon Sep 30 11:46:43 2024
    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 03:48:36 -0000 (UTC)
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 21:39 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:

    In article <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com>,
    already5chosen@yahoo.com (Michael S) wrote:

    Why # of CPU cores on die is of particular importance?

    Because multi-core made multi-processor systems commonplace, and far
    more software started using multiple threads.

    Another interesting factor is that proprietary server software that
    had been licensed by number of CPUs mostly changed to licensing by
    number of CPU *sockets*.


    What "proprietary software" do you have in mind?
    Certainly not Oracle Database EE.

    Not sure how they were strongarmed into giving up revenue like this
    ...

    Big vendors no longer believe that selling (vending) software is a
    sustainable business. They very much prefer leasing, now under name
    SaaS.
    But that's not something new.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael S@21:1/5 to mitchalsup@aol.com on Mon Sep 30 11:49:11 2024
    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 05:42:05 +0000
    mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) wrote:

    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 3:48:36 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 21:39 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:

    In article <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com>,
    already5chosen@yahoo.com (Michael S) wrote:

    Why # of CPU cores on die is of particular importance?

    Because multi-core made multi-processor systems commonplace, and
    far more software started using multiple threads.

    Another interesting factor is that proprietary server software that
    had been licensed by number of CPUs mostly changed to licensing by
    number of CPU *sockets*.

    This is one of the reasons one of my employers stayed with 6 YO
    software rather than switch to SOLARIS....

    I fail to see relationship between comment of Lowrence D'O and your
    response.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MitchAlsup1@21:1/5 to Michael S on Mon Sep 30 17:31:39 2024
    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 8:49:11 +0000, Michael S wrote:

    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 05:42:05 +0000
    mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) wrote:

    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 3:48:36 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 21:39 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:

    In article <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com>,
    already5chosen@yahoo.com (Michael S) wrote:

    Why # of CPU cores on die is of particular importance?

    Because multi-core made multi-processor systems commonplace, and
    far more software started using multiple threads.

    Another interesting factor is that proprietary server software that
    had been licensed by number of CPUs mostly changed to licensing by
    number of CPU *sockets*.

    This is one of the reasons one of my employers stayed with 6 YO
    software rather than switch to SOLARIS....

    I fail to see relationship between comment of Lowrence D'O and your
    response.

    Change in licensing terms caused us not to move forward--while
    we could afford SW licensing on SunOS we could not under Solaris
    on the very same server.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)