Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 15:48:18 03/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2003 at 00:16:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 need to reread. I never made such a claim. > _you_ brought up the PIII vs PIV issue, not me, saying >that the PIII wouldn't execute PIV code either. Sorry, wrong again. Matt was actually the first one in this sub-thread to bring up P3/P4. He compared P3/P4 offerings sitting on the shelf next to one another to K6/P2 machines sitting on the shelf next to one another. Since then, the comparison of P3/P4 to K6/P2 has been one of the main subjects of the thread. Bringing up P3 vs. P4 issue would not imply that I made the above claim anyway. >>>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_ Here was your question, _again_. "Did you see an advertisement where someone was trying to convince you to buy [one][P3/P4] over the other? I doubt it." Did I not answer that question? After I answered it, you changed the question. It suddenly became this: "I asked where Intel had tried to get you to buy a PIII instead of a PIV." When that tactic failed, you tried to claim the subject was irrelevant to begin with. It is clearly not irrelevant. >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 I've never disputed that K6 could not execute CMOV, or that Crafty once upon a time failed because of that. But if K6 was not marketed specifically against the P2 your entire argument falls flat on its face. >didn't mention PIII/PIV or anything else, just that the K6 was directly >marketed against the PII... I've repeatedly asked where AMD specifically targeted the P2. Answer: they didn't. You always like to trumpet the fact that you produce data in your arguments against Vincent. I'm waiting for any data here. You've produced zero so far in this argument. I'm still waiting for benchmark numbers you promised (though I don't hold out any hope of actually seeing those), and also the sales figures you made up to support another argument. >End of story. > >Anything else didn't come from me. Restating your original argument is going to get you nowhere if you have nothing to back it up.
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.