Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:50:07 03/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 12, 2003 at 19:20:40, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On March 11, 2003 at 23:29:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 11, 2003 at 20:17:57, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On March 11, 2003 at 12:22:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On March 10, 2003 at 19:56:12, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 09, 2003 at 22:10:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Did you see an advertisement where someone was trying to convince you to >>>>>>buy over the other? I doubt it. >>>>> >>>>>When P3 and P4 existed concurrently, every single ad where Intel advertised the >>>>>P4, they were trying to get you to buy P4 over P3. Of course they didn't >>>>>explicitly say so, but I don't ever remember seeing an AMD ad where they >>>>>explicitly mentioned an Intel chip either. The P3 was, for many things, faster >>>>>than the higher clocked P4. Intel prematurely killed the P3 because they wanted >>>>>to sell P4s, and P3 could have made P4 look bad. >>>> >>>>You are arguing this from the _wrong_ side. >>> >>>??? You asked if I'd ever seen an ad where Intel tried to convice me to buy a P4 >>>over a P3. I answered that question - every single ad Intel made for the P4 was >>>trying to get you to buy it over the P3. >> >> >>Again, that isn't the point. I asked where Intel had tried to get you to buy >>a PIII instead of a PIV. > >Must I quote _your_ words in every one of _my_ posts, to show that you can't >remember what you wrote? Read the paragraphs above. You never asked any such >question. You said "one over the other". Again I must apologize for not >reading your mind and somehow figuring out that you meant "P3 over P4". I'm going to explain this _once_ more and I am not going to waste further time: 1. AMD marketed the K6 as a faster/cheaper replacement for the PII. That's simple enough to understand. Except that it was _not_ an exact replacement, as I have pointed out. 2. Intel _never_ marketed the PIII as a replacement for the PIV. _never_. They _always_ marketed the PIV as a replacement for the PIII and said it was faster/etc. Now as to what you are trying to prove with your nonsensical twisting of things, I have no idea. But there is _no_ simularity between AMD saying "buy me (K6 over PII)" and Intel saying "buy me (PIV over PIII)." The PIV _will_ execute anything the PIII will execute. The K6 will _not_ execute everything the PII will. So _what_ are you trying to prove with this ducking and dodging nonsense??? I have _not_ been unclear in what I wrote. I have not changed my opinion. I've been 100% consistent from the first post in this thread. > >>> No, they didn't specifically mention >>>the P3, but the AMD ads never specifically mentioned an Intel processor either. >>> >> >>The magazine ads I saw _did_ mention the Intel chip by name. The headline >>was "why pay more?" (again, not an exact quote but but that was the gist) >>and later "the K7 is faster and cheaper." (another non-literal quote). > >Where is the Intel chip mentioned there? Why don't you find a real ad and point >me to it (or copy it here if it's in some printed source). Otherwise, I'll >consider your argument hand-waving. And where exactly would I find a real add today? The K6 and PII are _old_ news. You might find something on the web, I have no idea. But the very _idea_ that AMD was trying to market their chip without saying it was "Intel- compatible" is something barely short of absurd. Intel _is_ the PC market. It has been since IBM made that fateful choice 20 years ago. > >>>>The PIV is 100% compatible with the >>>>PIII. The inverse is _not_ true, and this is often referred to as "backward >>>>compatibility". >>> >>>I gave one example earlier of where P4 is not 100% backward compatible. >> >>Where? IE what can I do on a PIII that will fail on a PIV? > >When an FP instruction throws an exception, every x86 processor except P4 can >tell you where the exception happened and what instruction caused it. > >Whether this is actually used in any programs is irrelevant. It does show P4 is >not 100% backward compatible, and that behavior _could_ be relied upon in some >code somewhere. OK. And in that case it _might_ be considered to be incompatible, although by the time it happens, the program is already DOA. That's a bit different than simply failing to execute certain instructions. > >>>>That is _different_ than their trying to sell a PIII and saying it is equal to >>>>the PIV but >>>>much cheaper. And that case is closest to the K6 vs PII point. >>> >>>I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say. >> >> >>Trying to sell the PIV instead of the PIII is logical. The PIV will >>execute all PIII code. It is faster. > >When the P4 was first released, it was not necessarily faster than the P3. >Sometime around July 2001 (I can't find exact dates), the P3 was at 1.4GHz and >apparently scaling pretty well, while the P4 was only at 1.8GHz. I'm sure that >P3 was faster on a LOT of stuff than the P4. > >Intel froze the clockspeed of the P3 at that time and raised the price a lot, so >as to not compete with the P4. > And that has exactly what to do with the current disagreement? >>>>>>Again, it depends. If I do a target=P3, I would expect that to run on a PIV. >>>>> >>>>>If I do target=Pentium, I'd expect it to run on a K6. That's basically the >>>>>comparison you're making there. >>>> >>>>No, I bought a PII and did "target=pentiumII" because _ knew_ that the PII had >>>>different optimization isues than the original pentium. The PII had an OOE core >>>>for example, while the original pentium depended on the compiler to pair >>>>instructions >>>>for the super-scalar execution units. At the time I bought a PII, AMD was >>>>advertising >>>>their chip as faster and cheaper. And it did _not_ say (but not 100% >>>>compatible) and >>>>that led to the confusion I mentioned. >>> >>>You said, "If I do a target=P3, I would expect that to run on a PIV." >>>I replied "If I do target=Pentium, I'd expect it to run on a K6." >>> >>>Is that not a fair analogy? I'm not sure where the rest of your paragraph came >>>from, but it's pointlessly obfuscating. >> >>Yes. But that isn't what we are doing. > >That is what I said the first time, and you said "No." Now you say, "Yes," >while somehow trying to claim that it's not pertinent to the discussion? Please _read_. I _clearly_ said I compiled with "target=PII" because _that_ was the current architecture being produced. It failed on the K6. I did _not_ say "target=pentium" as it would make no sense. Optimizations for the pentium were _far_ different than optimizations for the PII. So what does target=pentium have to do with anything? Or, while we are there, what about "target=486" which also has _nothing_ to do with the current context. Once again: I used target=pentiumII. That _was_ the current processor I was using. AMD convinced many to buy K6's rather than PII's. And then we found out that the K6 was not a pentiumII. Why are we changing the topic back and forth? Pentium II _was_ the issue at the time. It was _the_ processor of choice. > >> I'm interested in buying a PII. >>I buy one. I compile for it and say target=pentiumII. A friend buys a >>K6 and assumes it is compatible with the PII since it is marketed as a >>faster/cheaper replacement. The code doesn't work. >> >>I have a PIII. A friend buys a PIV. My target=PIII program will work >>perfectly for him. I wouldn't assume a PIII will do everything a PIV >>would do, but the inverse is logical as Intel makes that claim. I'm used >>to the idea that a newer version will be compatible with the older version, >>plus adding some new features. > >K6 was compatible with the older version (Pentium) plus adding new features >(3dNow at least). K6 is slightly older than the P2. Unfortunately it was being marketed _against_ the PII. Which is where this story started. And new versions came out _after_ the introduction of the PII. But with the incompatibility issue still there. > >>>>>>And most likely if I do a target=p4 it would run on a P3 although I can >>>>>>certainly think of reasons why it wouldn't. >>>>> >>>>>Most of the time it would, just as most of the time K6 would run P2 executables. >>>>> The only difference I'm aware of (for K6/P2) is CMOV. For P3/P4 the difference >>>>>is SSE2. >>>> >>>>But _if_ you compile for the PIII it will absolutely run on the PIV. If you >>>>compile for >>>>the PIV it will run on the PIV but perhaps not on the PIII depending on the >>>>instructions >>>>the compiler is capable of producing. However, _nowhere_ did you see Intel say >>>>"The >>>>PIII is 100% compatible with the PIV". You will find "The PIV is 100% backward >>>>compatible with the Pentium processor product line." >>> >>>Point me to something where AMD specifically mentioned compatibility in terms of >>>the _P2_. Nowhere did you see AMD say "The K6 is 100% compatible with the P2". >> >> >>No, they just said "we are faster and cheaper than the PII." With the >>implication that all else is "equal". It isn't. (or wasn't). > >I ask again if they specifically mentioned the P2. I still haven't seen any >evidence. Got any evidence about how Kennedy was killed? This was not last week. But I'm waiting for any logical explanation for why AMD would _not_ claim to be "Intel compatible". And that means "current Intel compatible" by reasonable inference. > >>>>>>But Intel doesn't market the P3 to be compatible with the P4. >>>>> >>>>>No. They market P4 to be compatible with P3. >>>> >>>>Playing word games. "backward compatible" is not "compatible". >>> >>>Just a couple paragraphs ago, you wrote, "The PIV is 100% compatible with the >>>PIII." Before you accuse me of playing 'word games', don't play them with your >>>own writing. >> >>I believe I also used the term "backward-compatible" pretty clearly. I'm > >And I didn't? Not to me. Talking about PIII not executing PIV code is not exactly "backward compatible". > >>not playing any word games. _anything_ that works on a PIII will execute on >>a PIV, unless instruction timing is critical. That _is_ compatible in the >>definition of "backward compatible". > >I said the same thing, and you accused me of playing word games. Somehow you're >not playing word games when you say the same thing. Funny how that works.
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.