Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Introducing "No-Moore's Law"

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
>>What, exactly, is the point?
>Intel recalled their chips.  AMD denied they had a problem for at _least_ two
>Agreed, one bad experience, but at the loss of a month of my time, it was bad
>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
>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.)


This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.