Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 13:33:42 03/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
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? >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. >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.