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: Elmer who wrote (72169)	9/18/1999 12:13:00 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 1576378

Re: this is really dumb trying to compare... The boards didn't crash, they occasionally didn't cold boot on resets and needed an extra reset (at least that's how I interpret the description). But this isn't a problem in the sense the FDIV bug was - never any data corruption. You just need to do an extra reset once in a while. By the way, I've seen computers that don't always yield a clean reset with other motherboards, including Intel motherboards, and I'll bet you have too. Dan

To: Elmer who wrote (72169)	9/18/1999 11:26:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1576378

Fud, <The FDIV bug caused the average user would encounter an incorrect result from a FP operation once every 25,000 years.> You have no idea what you are talking about. As usual :) This "estimation" from Intel was proven to be invalid because their assumption of random use of floating numbers is totally false. In contrast, the FDIV errors were grouped around so-called "bruised numbers" that are much more frequent in typical calculations. If you have any proper background, try this: cs.berkeley.edu Then shut up.