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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (61908)	11/2/2001 7:10:13 PM
From: TGPTNDR	Respond to of 275872

Wanna, Re: ...P.S. Is this supposed to be one of those "trick" questions? <g> ... No. Steve Kovlakas asked me the question & I told him I didn't know but that I was sure somebody would answer. Then he posted Tenchusatsu -- but Ten had already left -- so I picked it up and asked you. Nothing sinister on my part. tgptndr

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (61908)	11/2/2001 8:05:09 PM
From: SisterMaryElephant	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

wanna_bmw, Tenchusatsu and TGPTNDR <Re: AMD / Intel recommended lists> The reason I am asking is that such a list may imply AMD's indirect acknowledgment that system instabilities exist. It's important to distinguish between defective parts causing instabilities, of which neither Intel or AMD are immune, versus certifiable good parts causing instabilities. I think OEM's who evaluate and put together such systems can make these distinctions. If these occur much more often on AMD systems then maybe AMD is forced to limit the HW components that solidly work with the CPU ( thus a recommended list ). While it may not be the CPU, I am sure OEM's take note of such behavior. Maybe it is these impressions that prevent major OEM's from building commercial systems based on AMD processors? SK PS. Instabilities is probably too strong a word. Maybe it should be replaced by incompatibilities.

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (61908)	11/3/2001 7:03:17 AM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Wanna: They don't need one. If it's built for x86, it will work under the Intel platform. Actually, that's not true. An amazing amount of hardware doesn't live up to the appropriate specs. Since Intel is pretty much the de facto standard, the hardware makers test their stuff on a few Intel platforms and if it works, it works. However, if it doesn't live up to the specs, chances are it won't work on future Intel platforms. This was the case with those 3.3V AGP cards that fit in 1.5V AGP sockets (or something like that) and cause massive problems (fried board, IIRC) for i850 systems. Except for the extremely rare times where Intel or AMD screw up, anything that lives up to the appropriate specs, will work perfectly on present and future AMD and Intel platforms. I will give you, however, that the odds of something that doesn't quite manage the demands set by the specifications actually working anyway are almost certainly higher on Intel platforms than on AMD platforms, due to testing preferences by the hardware makers. -fyo