Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 14:28:18 03/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 2003 at 11:41:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 05, 2003 at 01:23:51, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>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? > >Intel recalled their chips. AMD denied they had a problem for at _least_ two >weeks. > >Agreed, one bad experience, but at the loss of a month of my time, it was bad >enough. > >And then there was the K6 issue with cmov missing, if you were on the crafty >list at the >time you'll remember all the testing and debugging everyone was trying, until it >became >apparent that only AMD processors were failing... > >That is the point. And that was not AMD's fault as their processors were compliant with spec. I don't know why you expected Pentium 2 binaries to run on a K6. This has never been true of even Intel chips. (Actually I suppose it happens in applications code, but new chips always extend the ISA, and different companies have never been quite at the same point in ISA implementation.) -Matt
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.