They were also 64bit capable years before other architectures, especially ARM. When ARMv8 was new and untested, MIPS64 had 15+ years of experience and existing toolchain support. They squandered the advantage they had.
Unfortunately like all of the unix workstation vendors they still tried to charge premium prices into the late 90s when for far less you could have a bought a PC with a top of the range graphics card for far less than had the same performance (albeit perhaps not the same reliability).
Unfortunately like all of the unix workstation vendors they still tried to charge premium prices into the late 90s when for far less you could have a bought a PC with a top of the range graphics card for far less than had the same performance (albeit perhaps not the same reliability).
They had to.
While paying more is always unwelcome, obviously, the fixed costs for their CPUs weren't that much lower than Intel's - but they had a tiny amount of sales to spread that cost on. Also, Intel was far ahead of anyone in process technology - beating their performance by being smarter and more targeted got harder and harder. It's just the last five years or so Intel have really lost their way there, unable to progress from 14 nm.
This is also why moving to Itanic was so widespread... Intel were
Let's get this straight - there are only two guys who are to blame for squandering everything we had at SGI.
1) Ed McCracken for fighting with Jim Clark, thus forcing him to leave and start Netscape
2) Ed McCracken for refusing to sell PC graphics cards because "SGI is a system company" and selling the Odyssey graphics team to Nvidia and cancelling next gen Bali graphics.
3) Rick Beluzzo, who just about knew how to sell printers, cancelled all future MIPS development and decided that Itanium/Windows was the future, squandering everything else.
PC processors became too good for small companies to compete with. SGI simply could not continue to develop and maintain MIPS. They were always doomed.
Remember, SGI didn't bet the farm just on Itanic, they made PCs too. But PC video cards were getting too good too fast, and they couldn't compete with commodity GPUs either.
PC processors became too good for small companies to compete with. SGI simply could not continue to develop and maintain MIPS. They were always doomed.
Remember, SGI didn't bet the farm just on Itanic, they made PCs too. But PC video cards were getting too good too fast, and they couldn't compete with commodity GPUs either.
TL;DR: SGI was always doomed, and MIPS with it.
SGI - and other workstation manufacturers - are good examples of The Innovator's Dilemma [wikipedia.org]. An excellent book, read it if you haven't already.
Systems programmers are the high priests of a low cult.
-- R.S. Barton
Cue the old guys (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
MIPS is still quite popular, you just don't know you are using it. It powers many devices including routers, thermostats, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SGI, PS1 and N64 too.
They were the original people doing the ARM strategy of just licensing the core to everyone.
Re:Cue the old guys (Score:5, Informative)
They were also 64bit capable years before other architectures, especially ARM.
When ARMv8 was new and untested, MIPS64 had 15+ years of experience and existing toolchain support. They squandered the advantage they had.
Re:Cue the old guys (Score:5, Informative)
Blame SGI. They bet the farm on Itanium, which also claimed the lives of DEC Alpha and PA-RISC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately like all of the unix workstation vendors they still tried to charge premium prices into the late 90s when for far less you could have a bought a PC with a top of the range graphics card for far less than had the same performance (albeit perhaps not the same reliability).
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately like all of the unix workstation vendors they still tried to charge premium prices into the late 90s when for far less you could have a bought a PC with a top of the range graphics card for far less than had the same performance (albeit perhaps not the same reliability).
They had to.
While paying more is always unwelcome, obviously, the fixed costs for their CPUs weren't that much lower than Intel's - but they had a tiny amount of sales to spread that cost on. Also, Intel was far ahead of anyone in process technology - beating their performance by being smarter and more targeted got harder and harder. It's just the last five years or so Intel have really lost their way there, unable to progress from 14 nm.
This is also why moving to Itanic was so widespread... Intel were
Re: Cue the old guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The same Rick Beluzzo who quit to go work for Microsoft. Tells you all you need to know.
Re: (Score:2)
And the same story repeated itself 10 years later with Stephen Elop and Nokia.
Fool me once...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
SGI had no chance to survive (make your time)
PC processors became too good for small companies to compete with. SGI simply could not continue to develop and maintain MIPS. They were always doomed.
Remember, SGI didn't bet the farm just on Itanic, they made PCs too. But PC video cards were getting too good too fast, and they couldn't compete with commodity GPUs either.
TL;DR: SGI was always doomed, and MIPS with it.
Re: (Score:2)
SGI had no chance to survive (make your time)
PC processors became too good for small companies to compete with. SGI simply could not continue to develop and maintain MIPS. They were always doomed.
Remember, SGI didn't bet the farm just on Itanic, they made PCs too. But PC video cards were getting too good too fast, and they couldn't compete with commodity GPUs either.
TL;DR: SGI was always doomed, and MIPS with it.
SGI - and other workstation manufacturers - are good examples of The Innovator's Dilemma [wikipedia.org]. An excellent book, read it if you haven't already.