Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:47:40 03/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2003 at 18:48:18, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >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. Ok, you can have the last word...
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.