Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Introducing "No-Moore's Law"

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.