Computer Chess Club Archives




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

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
>>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
>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
>>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 0.01 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.