Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #15931
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Date | 2012-10-04 17:47 -0400 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <k4kvuk$ms4$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <10709389.OQkU8GVx6R@sunwukong.fritz.box> <k4bd63$da0$1@speranza.aioe.org> <2175391.upJk9XtueH@sunwukong.fritz.box> <k4fjtf$so6$1@speranza.aioe.org> <8596609.knU0DjP0OM@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:8596609.knU0DjP0OM@sunwukong.fritz.box...
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
...
> And you even needed to correct your own spelling...
Once I'm aware a word is misspelled, I attempt to spell the word correctly
the next time and thereafter. I know I misspell when I haven't had
sufficient sleep. I know I have problems with certain words. I know I edit
and rewrite my posts and so end up with incorrect words or phrases
sometimes.
> Nobody else bothers here about the occasional mis-spelling.
Yours isn't occasional. For some words, it's permanent.
> Why do you do it? It contributes *nothing* to the discussion.
You responded to my post, but with an included insult. Why do you
insult people? "A typical RP argument ..." To use your words, "It
contributes *nothing* to the discussion."
Should I take it that you don't like valid criticism?
Should I take it that you don't like your faults exposed?
> However, I think you don't follow Postel's advice for communication: If
> you speak to someone else, try to understand, not try to misunderstand.
That's something you ignore in it's entirety.
The fact that you posted it to me is ironic.
> Words have a meaning only in context.
I agree. Can you please attempt to comprehend the context?
I ate a green apple in the morning, and I ate a green apple in the evening.
I salted the apple I ate in the evening. Which apple is the unripe red
apple? It could be either or neither or both, but it's more likely one is
green in color and the other is unripe. Salted or unsalted?
> It's just sometimes you don't understand me;
> and I don't think in these cases it is my fault.
Are you serious?
> >> It's another misunderstanding of you: You absolutely have to
> >> fill your fab. For memory makers, it's cut-throat; they have
> >> been dying like flies in the past years.
> >
> > What's wrong with making a smaller fab? It's one way to fill your
> > fab.
>
> It's less efficient, i.e. the price per die will be higher. They don't
> build bigger fabs for the fun of it, but because they want to be cheaper
> than the competition.
You're attempting to claim that the higher price per die over the operating
lifetime of a smaller fab will be substantially more than the upfront cost
of a much larger fab distributed on a per die basis? Doubtful.
> Furthermore, there aren't many companies who make
> equipment; for leading edge processes, you essentially have to buy from
> one company in the Netherlands (ASML); they have a sort-of (natural)
> monopoly on the most important component - the stepper. That however
> means that the equipment is designed for those who are willing to pay
> the price - and those are the big manufacturers who want big fabs.
Equipment manufacturers have to go where the money is too. If their
customers no longer want large equipment, they'll design smaller equipment.
They'll take custom orders too. They're designing very specialized
machines. If no one buys them, they're out of business.
> >> The semiconductor industry did something completely different:
> >> They separated making and designing.
> >
> > So did the automotive industry, circa the early 1990's. Many of them
> > moved design from Detroit to California, Italy, Taiwan, Korea, China,
> > etc.
>
> Stop saying "automotive industry" when you want to say "Detroit".
No, I don't mean Detroit. I mean the major automotive companies. At one
time, that meant the Detroit based Big-3. Today, I'd define it as General
Motors, Ford, Toyota, Daimler-Chrysler. Even Toyota designs in Michigan
and California.
> I applied Postel's principle, and I clearly figure out that you use the
> words "automotive industry" as synonym for "Detroit", and you ignore the
> rest of the world, which also has their automotive industries.
Clearly, it was a waste of your time to use "Postel's principle".
> Only Detroit destroyed itself by outsourcing everything to some other
> place. Furthermore, when you say something like "moved design to
> Italy", it sounds as if Italians haven't made cars before.
That's the way it sounds to you. That's not what was said.
> FIAT is 9 years older than GM (the old GM, the one founded in 1908
> which went bankrupt 100 years later).
The "new" GM is the "old" GM without the unused assets
and financial liabilities.
> You probably wouldn't say GM "moved design to Germany", because,
> yes, they do (Opel), but that would make you sound silly.
No, it would be inaccurate. AFAIK, nothing was moved there.
> >> This is very natural, as the semiconductor industry is a "printer"
> >> industry. The making is litography, i.e. printing.
> >
> > You mean lithography, not "litography". Specifically, it's
> > photolithography.
>
> See, you are doing it again. You perfectly understood me, but you think
> it's worth to show off that your English is better than mine. What's
> the point?
I just thought you misspelled it because you don't know how to spell it in
English, or you used a non-English spelling.
Just typing a few letters: "litog" into Google or Yahoo finds the correct
spelling. That takes you what, two seconds? Two seconds to not have
someone point it out. Is that worth it? Even simpler, enable your
spelling checker.
> It's supposed to pronounce "lit^{h}ography", but you
> probably pronounce it with a fricative "th" (as in modern greek and
> English, but this is supposed to be pronounced as ancient greek,
> where theta was a plosive).
In English, it's pronounced with a 'th':
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lithography
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lithography?s=t
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lithography
> >> There are some businesses in the printing industry where you need
> >> the press in-house (newspapers, e.g.), but usually, the design
> >> (the writing) is separated from the replication (the printing).
> >>
> >
> > There you go again with the "lump and dump" - conflating lithography
> > with photolithography.
>
> You apparently have an abstraction/analogies problem, you see the
> differences but miss the similarities. The essence of lithography and
> photolithography is that both make cheap replications possible -
> replications of drawings, of books, of integrated circuits, and that the
> replication process is independent of the creation process.
Mass production, injection molding, electronic component insertion, CAD/CAM,
lost foam casting, etc also make cheap replications possible. Do you intend
to classify all of them, and numerous other technologies and business
processes, as "'printer' industry" also?
> > Photolithography is too highly specialized to compare it to the
> > printing of book and newspapers. Basically, you're conflating a
> > simple process of placing ink on paper with a complex process
> > such as chemical etching and vapor deposition of elements, like
> > silicon, gallium, or arsenic, and also re-classifying the work
> > numerous Electrical Engineers as that of mere wordsmiths.
>
> Uh-oh. A writer or a painter who creates an *original*, which later
> is replicated by printing, is an artist, his profession is not to do the
> replication, but to create the original.
I should apologize to the artists for lumping them in with writers.
> As is the EE's task, who creates a circuit, which is then "printed"
> in the fab. Both professions require skills, quite different skills,
[...]
So?
> [...] but good writers are even rarer than good EEs.
Opinion. Many EEs come from degree "mills".
> The fab however is not doing EE. They are doing lithography and
> chemistry, their expertise is to control the process and keep the yield
> high - they essentially operate really, really high-tech printers. It's
> a well more advanced way of doing it than printing a newspaper, but the
> essence is doing many, many cheap replications.
True.
> > Do you know what a related-rate problem is?
>
> Yes. But this is completely irrelevant here.
Why? You seem to not understand that a process can operate at different
speeds and volumes.
> Actually not. They are mass produced. For a not that big amount of
> "mass", but they are definitely not built to order. Just look up
> asml.com, they have nice photos, where you also can look inside the
> machines.
Just because a machine is part of a company's product line doesn't mean it's
not custom. Highly specialized machines are custom.
> Well, the semiconductor industry buys standard off-the-shelf products.
That is true, but only to a certain extent. At some point, they need
equipment modified to their needs, or to fit the plant, etc.
> They have to buy and install new equipment every two years, so many
> chances to correct that mistake. I don't think they overbuilt.
...
> Let's look at the data: TSMC's 28nm fab has now 24k wafer starts per
> month (and that's actually rather small, this is still in learning and
> growing mode; GlobalFoundries combined 32/28nm fab has 50k wafer starts
> per month and wants to grow to 80k, because now they have the customers,
> not just AMD). ASML's twinscan XL, which is the appropriate stepper for
> that fab, has 150wph, or 108k per month. It takes around 40 masks to
> process a complete wafer (20 of them are metals and vias), so TSMC needs
> only 10 of these steppers, if they are 100% utilized.
>
> There isn't much room for less. Several process steps like the tungsten
> contacts (done with the Altus linked above) are only done once per wafer
> (contacts and local interconnects), and you want to utilize the entire
> fab 100%. The single Altus with its 120wph is good for more than 80k
> wafers per month. They won't sell that many of them; low two-digits, I
> guess. I hope this illustrates the problem: The machines are quite
> small and fast, but really, really expensive.
>
You say they want to utilize their entire fab. However, you cite examples
where they aren't, and you still claim they didn't overbuild. How does your
reasoning make sense to you? If they have any spare capacity for growth,
didn't they overbuild? Of course, they did. Any spare capacity indicates
they overbuilt. It's irrelevant that they intended for that capacity to be
used for growth. There is no guaranty they'll ever see any of the expected
growth. This is the same logic that caused the automotive industry to
design massive plants that eventually operated at only 30% of capacity for
decades.
"The expected growth didn't materialize."
"The market is in a downturn."
...
> > There is still a financial advantage to owning your own fab. They
> > can make them smaller or more efficient, if they want.
>
> It's a fairly trivial calculation: Suppose your external fab has a cost
> disadvantage of 30% per wafer - that's the profit they want to make.
> Because they fab for everybody, they can fill their big, big fab, and
> make it very efficient, by having 100% utilization for everything, and a
> good yield. If they succeed to be 30% more efficient than your small
> fab, the deal is done: Go fabless.
If they don't operate at or above a certain capacity levels, they're
operating at a loss until bankruptcy, or operating at break-even essentially
forever. If the capacity level is larger than break-even, they make a
profit.
The argument that semiconductor companies couldn't keep their fabs full,
i.e., lack of demand, was your prior argument for the industry selling their
fabs in the first place. Why do you expect outsourced fabs to be able to
fill their fab? Why do you expect that there is sufficient demand for that?
Consumed capacity is a function of supply and demand. There was
insufficient market demand in the first place to fill the fab for the fab's
original owner. So, they sold it. Why do you think there will be more than
enough demand for the fab's second owner if there wasn't for the first?
Rod Pemberton
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 07:16 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 10:44 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 10:45 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 11:42 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> - 2012-09-28 11:39 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-28 11:44 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-09-29 14:55 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 12:13 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-29 23:13 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 17:30 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-29 17:59 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-09-30 13:50 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-02 23:53 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-03 19:10 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-03 07:41 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-03 18:06 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-03 20:22 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 08:39 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-04 07:51 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 14:05 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-04 09:26 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 19:23 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-05 00:41 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-05 15:43 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-05 21:14 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-07 17:58 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-04 13:40 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-03 21:34 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-04 09:49 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-10 00:10 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-09 16:42 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 14:01 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 11:43 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 09:02 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 15:34 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 09:53 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 16:06 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 17:00 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 20:54 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-11 19:26 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 23:52 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-13 07:56 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 15:06 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 01:29 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 15:31 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 14:14 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-09 21:37 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 15:26 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 02:21 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 19:40 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-04 17:07 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-09-29 22:12 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-29 18:38 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 23:38 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> - 2012-09-30 11:47 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-02 00:19 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-02 16:06 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-05 14:50 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-06 03:14 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-30 16:34 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-01 02:31 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-01 01:27 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-01 16:57 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-02 16:51 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-03 02:48 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-04 17:47 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-05 00:39 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-06 18:47 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-02 19:23 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-09-30 17:05 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-01 02:26 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-05 19:45 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-04 13:22 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-10-06 02:37 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 01:38 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 20:43 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 20:56 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 16:00 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 21:05 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 16:40 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 23:16 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 00:19 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 18:43 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-09 09:59 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 18:46 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) marko <marko@marko.marko> - 2012-10-10 07:29 +1100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 17:11 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 01:11 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 20:46 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 14:48 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 13:35 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 00:01 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-13 20:51 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 17:36 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 13:34 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 13:35 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 08:54 -0700
csiph-web