IBM expands Opteron lineup

  • Thread starter Thread starter bbbl67
  • Start date Start date
What's apparently been tentatively agreed is an engine lock-down from the
2006 Chinese GP, with a 19k limit for 2008...

All but a done deal, it seems like a bit of a rush-job that might have
a loophole or two. I suspect that we'll see a couple teams
(Honda/Super Aguri in particular) playing at some funny business for
the last 3 or 4 races this year.
and then the funny part: fuel
economy and energy reuse. For cars which get ~1.5mpg this is hilarious -
Mad Max is showing signs of taking after his father after all.

You noticed that too? I think the whole mass damper situation quite
clearly proved that Max and Charlie have gone off the deep end. How a
part that is contained 100% within the chassis can be called a movable
*aerodynamic* device simply baffles the mind! Next thing you know
they'll be banning drivers because, last I checked, all current F1
drivers are "moveable devices" :)
Could be but, with the size of McLaren's ops in their swish new umm,
premises, I'm sure there are other things they could find to do with
Itaniums... given available software, which is the real problem. Certainly
it was Mclaren who was the intended Intel partner to be announced at Monza
last year... before AMD+FIA went and spoiled the party... sending Intel off
in an "incandescent" hissy fit.

Interesting though that they didn't go TOO far, just left Mercedes for
BMW (err, more to the point, leaving McLaren for Sauber). Maybe Intel
just doesn't like British or Italian teams? Toyota and Sauber-BMW are
about the only teams that aren't based in either of those two
countries! :)
 
While I am more familliar with MS SQL Server than Oracle, I would
prefer a cluster of 3 or 4 el cheapo 2 socket boxes to one 8 socket
monster. This way, even if one of the boxes fails, the other boxes
will take its workload, and the users will in worst case notice slower
response time, if anything at all. If the big box goes down for
whatever reason, all users go down with it, or you have to keep
another big box as a hot spare. Since the 8 socket server costs waaay
more than 4x2 socket, the cluster setup would be also more
economically sound solution. Admittedly administering a cluster is
more of pain in you know where comparing to a single box, so it all
depends on particular application you are running.


Don't sweat the details here, all I'm trying to say here is that if you
have an Oracle cluster, then it would be much more desirable to
failover to an equivalent box. So whether the primary node has either
2, 4, or 8-processors, you'd want to failover to an equivalent
performing anniversary.
 
All but a done deal, it seems like a bit of a rush-job that might have
a loophole or two. I suspect that we'll see a couple teams
(Honda/Super Aguri in particular) playing at some funny business for
the last 3 or 4 races this year.

FIA seems to be just making up the rules as they go along anyway.:-) Now
they want to have the homologated engines "submitted" after Japan or
Brazil, whichever is the one after two races have been completed. The way
things have been going, I'm sure Honda can arrange to have it delivered in
a box... in shards.:-) The whole thing is nuts - AIUI variable valve
timing is to be banned and yet this is a common place feature of many
production cars now. Homologation??... the road to mediocrity IMO...
either that or Ferrari is going to be allowed to "submit" a ringer.
You noticed that too? I think the whole mass damper situation quite
clearly proved that Max and Charlie have gone off the deep end. How a
part that is contained 100% within the chassis can be called a movable
*aerodynamic* device simply baffles the mind! Next thing you know
they'll be banning drivers because, last I checked, all current F1
drivers are "moveable devices" :)

Yeah the aero thing is basically indirect there as I understand the rules:
I figure it's more akin to the reason the Lotus 88 was banned... because it
had a double suspension system, though in this case the second "suspended
part" is tiny in comparison.
Interesting though that they didn't go TOO far, just left Mercedes for
BMW (err, more to the point, leaving McLaren for Sauber). Maybe Intel
just doesn't like British or Italian teams? Toyota and Sauber-BMW are
about the only teams that aren't based in either of those two
countries! :)

Hey, maybe Intel thinks i-Drive is a wonderful idea with *just* a *superb*
name.:-) If they though Ronzo was "difficult", good luck to them in
dealing with Theissen.
 
Tony said:
I think the Williams deal actually came about from their (now defunct)
deal with HP. Interesting that HP would supply them with an Opteron
cluster rather than Itanium ones.

Yeah it is interesting. But it could be very simple, maybe Williams
just requested Opterons, and HP didn't care what it supplied just so
long as they were HPs?
Ahh, you're quite right, just last summer actually.

If McLaren had wanted Opterons, then they could've just gone to their
existing sponsor, Sun, and gotten them to supply them. Although Sun
hadn't yet completed work on their Galaxy servers, they were already
selling rebadged Newisys boxes. It would've probably resulted in Sun
staying as a sponsor of McLaren.

But what I can't figure out is if Intel got so pissed off at the FIA
for taking AMD sponsorship, then why did it take it out on McLaren? And
then later it just came back to the same F1 series and gave the
sponsorship to BMW instead? Is McLaren somehow closer to the FIA than
BMW is? I think perhaps it was just a convenient excuse to pull the
sponsorship from a more expensive team and give it to a cheaper team.
Intel can't be as generous with its sponsorships as it once was.
Paradoxically, it looks like AMD is getting much more generous with its
sponsorships. I was watching parts of the NASCAR qualifying at Watkins
Glen today, and of course AMD signs were all over; that's because AMD
is title sponsor of that race.

Another interesting thing, AMD has a similar sponsorship deal with
NASCAR that it has with FIA. AMD is the official chip supplier to both
the FIA and NASCAR.

Yousuf Khan
 
bbbl67 said:
Don't sweat the details here, all I'm trying to say here is that if you
have an Oracle cluster, then it would be much more desirable to
failover to an equivalent box. So whether the primary node has either
2, 4, or 8-processors, you'd want to failover to an equivalent
performing anniversary.

"Equivalent performing anniversary"? What the hell was I thinking here?
I meant equivalent performing node.

Yousuf Khan
 
FIA seems to be just making up the rules as they go along anyway.:-) Now
they want to have the homologated engines "submitted" after Japan or
Brazil, whichever is the one after two races have been completed. The way
things have been going, I'm sure Honda can arrange to have it delivered in
a box... in shards.:-) The whole thing is nuts - AIUI variable valve
timing is to be banned and yet this is a common place feature of many
production cars now. Homologation??... the road to mediocrity IMO...
either that or Ferrari is going to be allowed to "submit" a ringer.

Yeah. The funny thing is that the FIA keeps talking the talk about
implementing things that could be beneficial to road-going cars, yet
every time a technology that MIGHT make it to road going cars is
invented by a team it gets banned.

One thing I just remember, F1 cars actually pioneered some energy
reuse and hybrid drive technology back in the early 90's. This was
very promptly banned before it ever got to be raced. Same goes for
the continuously variable transmissions used on most hybrid road cars,
and active suspension used on many luxury performance cars.

Some days I really wish the GPMA group had stuck to their guns and
actually started up a breakaway series because the FIA is making an
absolute mess of F1!
Yeah the aero thing is basically indirect there as I understand the rules:
I figure it's more akin to the reason the Lotus 88 was banned... because it
had a double suspension system, though in this case the second "suspended
part" is tiny in comparison.

Sometimes I can't help but think that the FIA just wants to change the
rules in such a way to help their favorite team of the day, or perhaps
to hurt the teams they don't like. At the moment the beneficiary
seems to be Ferrari while the FIA tries to hamper the progress made by
any GPMA team (basically all top teams except Ferrari).
Hey, maybe Intel thinks i-Drive is a wonderful idea with *just* a *superb*
name.:-) If they though Ronzo was "difficult", good luck to them in
dealing with Theissen.

I think this time Intel just bypassed the whole F1 operation and went
straight to the top. The deal seems to be made with BMW corporate
office and they forced it down the line onto the Sauber-BMW F1 team.
 
George said:
Hey, maybe Intel thinks i-Drive is a wonderful idea with *just* a *superb*
name.:-) If they though Ronzo was "difficult", good luck to them in
dealing with Theissen.

Beyond just writing the cheque and handing it over to the team, what
possible input could Intel have on running the team? At the end of the
year, if it likes the exposure it got, then it renews for next year, or
it doesn't.

Sun found out its big cheque couldn't stop Ronzo from buying SGI Itaniums.

Yousuf Khan
 
Tony said:
Yeah. The funny thing is that the FIA keeps talking the talk about
implementing things that could be beneficial to road-going cars, yet
every time a technology that MIGHT make it to road going cars is
invented by a team it gets banned.

One thing I just remember, F1 cars actually pioneered some energy
reuse and hybrid drive technology back in the early 90's. This was
very promptly banned before it ever got to be raced. Same goes for
the continuously variable transmissions used on most hybrid road cars,
and active suspension used on many luxury performance cars.

Some days I really wish the GPMA group had stuck to their guns and
actually started up a breakaway series because the FIA is making an
absolute mess of F1!

The earliest instance of this happening was back in the early 80's when
anti-lock brakes were being introduced into cars for the first time,
they didn't make it to F1 till the early 90's! Anti-lock brakes were a
hand-me-down from production car technology to F1.

If FIA really wanted to make F1 relevant to road cars, then it would've
started banning all wings on these cars.

Yousuf Khan
 
Beyond just writing the cheque and handing it over to the team, what
possible input could Intel have on running the team? At the end of the
year, if it likes the exposure it got, then it renews for next year, or
it doesn't.

AIUI that's not how "sponsorship" works. For a start, F1 teams, even lower
series, don't have budgets or cost accounting: you buy what you "need" to
"do the job". If funds are running low, sponsors are asked to "help put
the car on the front row". While I'm sure that Intel was happy about the
Hungary freak "exposure", they'd better get it through their skulls that a
corporate mentality/culture, e.g. BMW, cannot, never will, win races.
 
Yeah. The funny thing is that the FIA keeps talking the talk about
implementing things that could be beneficial to road-going cars, yet
every time a technology that MIGHT make it to road going cars is
invented by a team it gets banned.

One thing I just remember, F1 cars actually pioneered some energy
reuse and hybrid drive technology back in the early 90's. This was
very promptly banned before it ever got to be raced. Same goes for
the continuously variable transmissions used on most hybrid road cars,
and active suspension used on many luxury performance cars.

Some days I really wish the GPMA group had stuck to their guns and
actually started up a breakaway series because the FIA is making an
absolute mess of F1!

Did you ever read
http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3127517
and
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=156,175&sid=175&article=1866 ?

I call them the Ecclonomist articles.:-) When The Economist is going after
you like that, something is rotten on the inside. In fact the "donation"
to the U.K. Labour party had nothing to do with tobacco, as suggested by
the MSM; it was all about Ecclestone's off-shore tax dodges and money
laundering... IMO. CVC??... poor wee buggers... babes in the woods! I
have to say, those articles turned me off F1 for a while and still have a
lingering bad taste; I no longer have the same enthusiasm... which means
when it gets boring, I can't be bothered.
Sometimes I can't help but think that the FIA just wants to change the
rules in such a way to help their favorite team of the day, or perhaps
to hurt the teams they don't like. At the moment the beneficiary
seems to be Ferrari while the FIA tries to hamper the progress made by
any GPMA team (basically all top teams except Ferrari).

Did you know that every team in F1, even down to the lowly Minardi/STR has
to pay into a fund to subsidize Ferrari... because of their "historical
value to the sport"? Paul Stoddard let it out... which is why he is no
longer part of the err, "circus".
I think this time Intel just bypassed the whole F1 operation and went
straight to the top. The deal seems to be made with BMW corporate
office and they forced it down the line onto the Sauber-BMW F1 team.

I don't get it! Does Intel really believe that BMW has some umm, cachet?
Geez I guess none of them own a 7 Series.:-)
 
George said:
AIUI that's not how "sponsorship" works. For a start, F1 teams, even lower
series, don't have budgets or cost accounting: you buy what you "need" to
"do the job". If funds are running low, sponsors are asked to "help put
the car on the front row". While I'm sure that Intel was happy about the
Hungary freak "exposure", they'd better get it through their skulls that a
corporate mentality/culture, e.g. BMW, cannot, never will, win races.

What are you referring to about the BMW culture?

Yousuf Khan
 
Did you ever read
http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3127517
and
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=156,175&sid=175&article=1866 ?

I call them the Ecclonomist articles.:-) When The Economist is going after
you like that, something is rotten on the inside. In fact the "donation"
to the U.K. Labour party had nothing to do with tobacco, as suggested by
the MSM; it was all about Ecclestone's off-shore tax dodges and money
laundering... IMO. CVC??... poor wee buggers... babes in the woods! I
have to say, those articles turned me off F1 for a while and still have a
lingering bad taste; I no longer have the same enthusiasm... which means
when it gets boring, I can't be bothered.

Hmm.. maybe one of the reason why all the teams need such large
superclusters is to try and sort out the accounting mess of this
operation? Yeouch! :)
Did you know that every team in F1, even down to the lowly Minardi/STR has
to pay into a fund to subsidize Ferrari... because of their "historical
value to the sport"? Paul Stoddard let it out... which is why he is no
longer part of the err, "circus".

Really?? Now that is a new one, and one that really makes no sense
anymore. Sure, Ferrari have been around longer than any other team,
but McLaren have been in F1 for over 40 years now and Williams isn't
too far behind them.
I don't get it! Does Intel really believe that BMW has some umm, cachet?
Geez I guess none of them own a 7 Series.:-)

Like 'em or not, BMWs are seen as the pinnacle of automobiles by a
large chunk of the world's population. It's a pretty darn good name
to be attached to.
 
What are you referring to about the BMW culture?

Not really BMW in particular - it's a big company with a corporate
infrastructure. It just doesn't fit the F1 mold required to innovate and
umm, cheat without getting caught... to be "creative" with the financing of
projects etc. etc. Why do you think BMW dumped Wiliams?... which basically
amounted to reneging on an intended heavy investment in Team Willie?
Theissen is just a guy fartin' higher than his ass.
 
George said:
Not really BMW in particular - it's a big company with a corporate
infrastructure. It just doesn't fit the F1 mold required to innovate and
umm, cheat without getting caught... to be "creative" with the financing of
projects etc. etc. Why do you think BMW dumped Wiliams?... which basically
amounted to reneging on an intended heavy investment in Team Willie?
Theissen is just a guy fartin' higher than his ass.

Yeah, but they're all big companies with corporate infrastructures now:
Honda, Renault, Mercedes, Toyota, and even Ferrari (Fiat).

However, I thought you were going to single BMW out as a company with a
particularly bad corporate culture? I personally would never buy a BMW,
or any German car, or any European car for that matter. I've only
bought North American or Japanese cars, so far (I might consider South
Korean too, though it hasn't happened yet). North American cars may not
be high-quality, but at least the parts are cheap. Japanese cars, we
all know about them. European cars have way too many gremlins, wierd
little problems that are annoying and cost way too much to diagnose and
fix, they're especially noticeable in a cold climate like Canada. I
liken European cars to road jewelry: they look great, but they're
fragile.

Yousuf Khan
 
George said:
Did you know that every team in F1, even down to the lowly Minardi/STR has
to pay into a fund to subsidize Ferrari... because of their "historical
value to the sport"? Paul Stoddard let it out... which is why he is no
longer part of the err, "circus".

Could it have something to do with the fact that he couldn't make a
success of his team that he suggested this?

Yousuf Khan
 
Could it have something to do with the fact that he couldn't make a
success of his team that he suggested this?

I don't think he ever expected to make a "success" of his team. It's more
likely he said it -- it was not "suggested" -- in response to the big teams
reneging on their promise of a Fighting Fund to help the small teams
survive. He also had other good reasons to dislike Ferrari.
 
Yeah, but they're all big companies with corporate infrastructures now:
Honda, Renault, Mercedes, Toyota, and even Ferrari (Fiat).

Still different operations though - the car constructors are all in
England, where the pool of tech skills is, and run as separate operations,
with budgets largely determined by sponsor money. Yes, Toyota is in
Germany but with a large contingent of "imported" people from the British
pool (not all Brits in fact) -- and previously a couple of dishonest
Italians :-) -- to do the job. I assume you've noticed that, despite huge
budgets, Toyota's efforts are not umm, paying off.:-)

McLaren is 40% owned by M-B who is apparently considering 100% ownership;
then again the results are not good as it is and can only get worse. They
had the two best drivers in the field - the car is a dud.

As for Ferrari, I believe it was spun back off a coupla years back to
prevent it being dragged down by the Fiat disaster... and it *is* being
managed by a Brit from the "pool" who has had spectacularly consistent
success in that role over the years. I've often thought the car should be
called a Brawnacher.:-)
However, I thought you were going to single BMW out as a company with a
particularly bad corporate culture? I personally would never buy a BMW,
or any German car, or any European car for that matter. I've only
bought North American or Japanese cars, so far (I might consider South
Korean too, though it hasn't happened yet). North American cars may not
be high-quality, but at least the parts are cheap. Japanese cars, we
all know about them. European cars have way too many gremlins, wierd
little problems that are annoying and cost way too much to diagnose and
fix, they're especially noticeable in a cold climate like Canada. I
liken European cars to road jewelry: they look great, but they're
fragile.

No, I wasn't singling BMW out, in particular, though I believe Theissen is
in way over his head; like I already said: fartin' higher than his ass.
We'll see if they keep Hinwil as a separate location but if they couldn't
make it with Williams, I don't see how things can get better - there's the
triple whammy of corporate rule, Theissens' ego and a limited pool of
skills.

As for cars, I used to buy VWs, until they lost their way. Now I buy
Hondas, though the most dependable, but boring, car I've owned was a
Toyota. I like to do my own maintenance so a single make is useful. Honda
& Toyota, and to a certain extent Nissan, have shown that good cars can be
made in N. America with substantial American design input; the formula is
simple: cautious innovation and most importantly, attention to detail...
the only Japanese "secret". From what I've seen & heard, the biggest
impediment to mfr of "good" American cars is UAW... who, in the strangest
policy I've ever heard, are allowed to veto "attention to detail".
 
Back
Top