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 (25854)	11/12/1997 11:35:00 AM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1580611

Elmer: <..2 standards. One for Intel and a second for AMD. Intel gets trashed for bugs and AMD gets excuses.> Yes, and I think this is fair enough. Intel is 40 times bigger than AMD and has 40 times more resources to produce bug-free products. Therefore, AMD can be excused, but Intel has no excuse. <Why not let AMD investors decide for themselves?> Really, why not? But why you, Elmer Phud, took the sword to protect me, poor informed? You have no source of information other than the same publications. I have read the link you provided, thank you. Now let me judge myself how serious are these "errata". And keep in mind that NONE OF THESE BUGS WERE DISCOVERED by users first time, all of them were detetcted in advance by AMD and now publised for your low mockery. Any jerk can type four characters and bring a Pentuim system down with F0-bug. As for K6, please try to reproduce any of AMD errata in a business environment, an then we may talk again. Until then you better shut up, the holy truthfinder. The level of noise you &Co raising makes it impossible for AMD investors to get any useful information here.

To: Elmer who wrote (25854)	11/12/1997 11:46:00 AM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1580611

Elmer, <It takes years of operation of 100+ million Intel chips to turn up obscure bugs> This is a clear indication how sloppy (or unprofessional?) the Intel-monopolists is. As for AMD-K6, NONE OF THESE BUGS WERE DISCOVERED by users first time, all of them were detetcted in advance by AMD and now publised for your mockery.

To: Elmer who wrote (25854)	11/12/1997 11:50:00 AM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1580611

Elmer: >>I say we should let AMD investors make their on decisions<< Who are "we"? Unintentional leak of information? A bunch of morons paid by Intel's PR department? I am curious, how you guys get paid for your overtime on SI?

To: Elmer who wrote (25854)	11/12/1997 3:55:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580611

Elmer, Intel P2 has 31 software, 7 hardware UNFIXED bugs. K6? 3,3 You sound like Fuchi demanding proof that I am an AMD shareholder. No, I did not ask you whether you own or ever owned AMD stock. I don't care, that has nothing to do with whether you can post accurate information. If Intel is paying you, THAT has everything to do with it. Since you refuse to answer, WE WILL ALL ASSUME THAT YOU ARE PAID BY INTEL. AMD says the system behaviour will be unpredictable Read the document amd.com. This phrase occurs 4 times in paragraphs 2.3.1, 2.4.1, 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. All of these bugs were corrected in the C stepping or earlier. My statement is correct and yours is incorrect. The K6 FPU bug, and your apology for it, sounds just like Intel's response to the FDIV bug that caused a $500 million recal. 1. Only occurs in extended precision (21 digit) floating point mode, only used in a handful of applications 2. The probability of the Intel bug occuring randomly was 1 in 65000 or 1 in 4,200,000 (not sure which). Pretty small, but apt to happen in a scientific computing environment. 3. The probability of the AMD bug occuring randomly is 1 in 48,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1 in 4.8x10^22), at least a million billion times less likely to happen. 4. The K6 causes an interrupt if this 1 in 48 million million billion event ever occurs. This makes it easy to 'catch' the bug in software with no speed penalty. In Intel's case, no interrupt, so software was not a viable option. In short if all 2 million K6's produced so far did nothing but do extended precision multiplies, it would take 76 years before one of them made an error. (assumes 10M extended precision multiplies per second). Petz