Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

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 0.19 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.