Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:16:47 03/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2003 at 16:33:42, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On March 12, 2003 at 22:50:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 12, 2003 at 19:20:40, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On March 11, 2003 at 23:29:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>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. > >I'm still waiting for something where AMD mentioned the P2. > >>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. > >Did I ever say or imply Intel marketed P3 as a replacement for P4? Yes you did. _you_ brought up the PIII vs PIV issue, not me, saying that the PIII wouldn't execute PIV code either. > >>Now as to what you are trying to prove with your nonsensical twisting of > >I'm not twisting anything. This seems to be the chain of events: > >1) You ask a question. >2) I answer the question. >3) You claim you never asked said question. >4) I quote your original question and say, "I answered that question." >5) You ignore the quotation and change the subject, obfuscating further. 2) is not what I would claim. You change the subject. Which was _clearly_ that the K6 was _not_ compatible with the processor it was being marketed against as being faster and cheaper. That was _the_ discussion. I gave exact details about what happened with the cmov instruction problem. I didn't mention PIII/PIV or anything else, just that the K6 was directly marketed against the PII... End of story. Anything else didn't come from me. > >>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'm not ducking and dodging anything. You asked a question and I answered it. >Then you changed the subject while claiming you had asked a different question. > >>>>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_ > >You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof lies on you. I'm sure you >have lots of old print publications around, and that stuff probably isn't that >hard to find on the web. > >>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. > >"Intel compatible" does not mean "P2 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. > >Sure. But it's still something P4 can't do. > >>>>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? > >Your words: "Trying to sell the PIV instead of the PIII is logical. The PIV >will execute all PIII code. It is faster." > >My response: P4 was not initially faster. > >>Please _read_. I _clearly_ said I compiled with "target=PII" because _that_ >>was the current architecture being produced. It failed on the K6. > >Duh. Have I ever disputed that? > >>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 made an ANALOGY. It is at least as relevant as your analogies about outboard >motors and stuff. > >P3:P4 :: Pentium:K6 >NOT P3:P4 :: P2:K6 as you seem to think. > >Can I be any clearer than that? > >>>> 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. > >Itanium is marketed against the Power4. It does not imply compatibility. > >AMD never claimed the K6 was _P2_ compatible, and that's the real issue here. >Your entire argument is based on the supposition that they did make that claim. > >>And new versions came out _after_ the introduction of the PII. But with >>the incompatibility issue still there. > >Then it's a good thing AMD never claimed the K6 was P2 compatible. > >>>>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. > >Now who is the one "ducking and dodging"? > >I'm not trying to make the claim that a specific person killed Kennedy. >Therefore, I don't need to produce evidence. You are making a claim that AMD >said something. Therefore you do need to produce evidence. > >>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. > >Technically they were compatible. They correctly reported "I don't support >CMOV" when queried via CPUID. > >You would also have inferred that P4 was faster than P3 when it was launched. >For quite a while after its release that was not the truth. > >>>>I believe I also used the term "backward-compatible" pretty clearly. I'm >>> >>>And I didn't? >> >>Not to me. > >You should read more carefully. > >> Talking about PIII not executing PIV code is not exactly >>"backward compatible". > >Good thing I never mentioned backward compatibility in that way. >Notice the paragraphs below. > >>>>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.