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 (30978)	4/4/1998 12:39:00 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573924

Elmer FUD: <I wanted to point out is that the K6 isn't taken seriously enough for it's bugs to be considered a problem.> Have you noticed the word "extended precision" where this bug was found? Do you have any even approximate idea what this means? Do you know that there is NO commercial compiler in the world that supports this mode of operation? BTW, it was nice not to see you here for a while. Why not you go back where you have been, big "bug expert"? P.S. Hey, guys, Intelafelons are flying back. Should we expect new AMD rally?

To: Elmer who wrote (30978)	4/6/1998 7:00:00 PM
From: Petz	Respond to of 1573924

Elmer, re:<FPU bugs> The AMD bugs are much less serious than Intel "FDIV" With "FDIV" thousands of divisors map to the bad lookup table entry, and EVERY numerator will cause an error with that denominator. With the AMD FMUL bugs 1. It only happens in extended precision mode, which only a handful of applications use 2. There are only 8 64 bit multipliers for which the error can occur (compared to THOUSANDS of FDIV divisors) 3. For each one of these, there are only a few multiplicands which can cause the error; compare this with EVERY numerator for the Intel bug 4. NO COMMERCIAL APPLICATION HAS EVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO REPRODUCE THE BUG whereas the Intel bug could be demonstrated easily using any spreadsheet program ever invented. The only reason Elmer brought this up again is because 1)there's no good news from Intel and b)he knows that the search capability of Silicon Investor doesn't reach as far back as the last discussion. Petz