mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (05/23/89)
In article <231@ross.UUCP> steves@ross.UUCP (steve studulski) writes: >In article <19088@winchester.mips.COM> John Mashey writes: >>1) (OPINION): N overlapping chip designs for the same architecture >>are not necessarily better than one really good design, for the same reason >>that having N software teams doing the same job may (or may NOT) be as >>effective as having one really-experienced team doing a project. >>I observe that there are relatively few world-class, leading-edge, proven, >>high-performance VLSI microprocessor design teams around, who can do good >>architecture AND implementation. Anybody who is trying to play in this >>game, with their own design, but without such a team is probably wasting >>their time. >I'm afraid I'm going to have to use the same excuse as John for writing >this article. After reading the first article above, I was also stirred >up. John implies that MIPS has cornered the market on "world-class, >leading-edge, proven, high-performance VLSI microprocessor design teams >around, who can do good architecture AND implementation." I have to take >serious exception to this statement. AARGH! read what I wrote, not what you think I implied. Argue with what I wrote, if you want, but don't make things up to argue with. This whole thing started when Mr. Cockcroft (who, I believe is not particularly directly involved in the design wars) repeated the "marketing claim" that N designs are better than 1. I said it wasn't necessarily true, and at least offered a little data to support my claim. I did NOT claim that having one good team was necessarily better than N; I did NOT claim that any SPARC implementors were incompetent, only that having N bunches of them did not guarantee that they'd all be world-class, and that anybody who didn't have such a team was wasting their time. [Why? because there's bound to be at least one world-class team, and if there is, the others are probably wasting their time if they're trying to build the same thing.] I claimed there were "relatively few world-class...", not that MIPS had an exclusive; that's ridiculous. >First off, is MIPS a semiconductor company or systems company? How can >MIPS possibly suggest that they are "the" major force in silicon design I certainly didn't claim that we were "the" major force (whatever that is) in silicon design; I do claim that we have enough talent to be competitive, because if we didn't, we'd have been defunct a long time ago, despite our peculiar nature. >and implementation if they are a systems house, and NOT a semiconductor >house? What sort of economic forces are going to force them to keep >their processor architecture and implementation state-of-the-art without >direct competition? And by competition I don't mean companies who second You have got to be kidding me....this is like claiming the Israeli army has no motivation to improve its tanks and airplanes because it only has one combined armed-service entity, and therefore no internal competition... I'd LOVE to have no competition; I just can't imagine it ever happening... >source your implementation, for they will not compete on architecture >or implementation, they will only compete on processing technology. No. All of our semiconductor licensees can do whatever they want with the architecture, as long as they also build the standard, pin-compatible parts. If they want to modify the chips, they can. If they think we're not giving them competitive designs, or if our designs aren't meeting their needs, they can build their own, from scratch, or by making variations, and some of them certainly have the resources to do that if they want to. > >As far as personnel goes, how can John possibly imply that MIPS has >cornered the market on experienced and proven microprocessor design I didn't. Why do you keep saying I did? I've even posted good words about the Ross MMU parts, publicly. None of these comments were remotely intended as an attack on Ross, so I can't figure out why there is such a violent reaction. Maybe there is something else productive that you want to argue about. >teams. At Ross, we have no lack of experience in semiconductor ..... These certainly sound like credible credentials; having heard of most of these before, I'm not surprised. One note: you'll note that a fairly small list of projects-recruited from appears in these. Why is that? "because there are a relatively small number of world-class....." >and design expertise. (Do either of these groups or MIPS have anyone >who chose them over Ross Technology? I think not.) Geography and timing may be relevant. I'm not sure what the implication of the above is. However, our folks all know where Ross is, so maybe you could call off the Ross headhunters that keep calling.... >I apologize for taking up comp.arch space with this article, but I >am a member of Ross's design team, and I take it personally when >people imply that me and my company lack the expertise needed to >design high-performance microprocessors. One more time: read what I wrote, not what you thought I implied. please. Or send me email and ask me what I meant.... ------------- sorry, everybody, for the length of this. this stuff is getting entirely out of hand, although I don't know what to do about it.... -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086