Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (61520)	6/11/1999 6:07:00 PM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575622

Re: "What Dirk is saying is that the original 3DNOW implementation was poor and inferior to the Intel SSE implementation." You need to reread Dirk's statement: "With 45 instructions, the expanded 3DNow instruction set will more than match the performance of the 71 instructions which Intel Corp. has recently added to its MMX instruction set, Meyer said." MORE THAN MATCH seems pretty clear to me. Currently, 3DNow is a match. With the addition of the new instructions, it is more than a match. Kevin (By the way, I'm STILL waiting for you to show me those benchmarks that show a significant improvement as a result of SSE enhancements made to video card drivers.)

To: Paul Engel who wrote (61520)	6/11/1999 6:35:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575622

<What Dirk is saying is that the original 3DNOW implementation was poor and inferior to the Intel SSE implementation.> Surprise, surprise. I remember AMD had a set of foils which depicted all of the disadvantages of SSE and all of the advantages of 3DNow!, and those foils popped up a week before the introduction of the Pentium III. Now it seems that AMD is saying, "This time, we're really going to beat Intel's SSE," without admitting that 3DNow! in its initial form was inadequate for long-term acceptance. <AMD developers will now have to choose to develop 3DNOW or "new & improved 3DNOW" software - or BOTH - which will really dissipate their efforts.> I don't think anyone will be developing for the "legacy 3DNow!" anymore. What I'm wondering is whether AMD can really convince software developers out there to support the "new and improved 3DNow!", especially those who are already devoting resources toward SSE development as we speak. Tenchusatsu