Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 22:23:51 03/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2003 at 23:09:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 04, 2003 at 22:06:53, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On March 04, 2003 at 00:24:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 03, 2003 at 22:33:57, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>> >>>>On March 02, 2003 at 23:24:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>And I'm going to buy the fastest thing I can at the time I purchase. If they >>>>>lag with clock speeds, I may well go with someone else. And I believe they >>>>>know that. >>>> >>>>Funny then, that you've never had an AMD machine, since they were faster than >>>>Intel machines for quite some time. >>> >>>As I mentioned, we _had_ a few K5 processors. They left a _terrible_ taste. >>>I helped a Ph.D. student debug for a couple of weeks, only to find it was an >>>unreliable AMD processor. Ran fine on equivalent Intel chips. Not on K5. >>>We later find that that batch of K5's had some problems. >> >>I never claimed anything about the K5. K5, by all accounts, pretty well sucked >>anyway. I'm talking about the last couple years, where Athlon was clearly >>dominating performance numbers everywhere. > > >Fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on _me_. Sound >familiar? That is a problem for AMD, IMHO. So you were 'fooled' once by a bad batch of K5s. You could have been fooled by the Pentium FDIV bug, and then by the non-functional P3 1.13GHz chips. In fact, over the last several years, Intel has had more problems like this than AMD. What, exactly, is the point?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.