On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:11:35PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 15:06, Mark Rae wrote:
> > I think its more a case of AMD now having solid evidence to back
> > up the claims.
>
> Wow! That's pretty fascinating. So, is the evidence pretty
> overwhelming that this was not s
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 15:06, Mark Rae wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:41:14PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 13:24, Mohan, Ross wrote:
> > > From AMD's suit against Intel. Perhaps relevant to some PG/AMD issues.
> > Well, this is, right now, just AMD's supposition about
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:41:14PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 13:24, Mohan, Ross wrote:
> > From AMD's suit against Intel. Perhaps relevant to some PG/AMD issues.
> Well, this is, right now, just AMD's supposition about Intel's
> behaviour, I'm not sure one way or the othe
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 13:24, Mohan, Ross wrote:
> From AMD's suit against Intel. Perhaps relevant to some PG/AMD issues.
>
> "...125. Intel has designed its compiler purposely to degrade performance
> when a program
> is run on an AMD platform. To achieve this, Intel designed the compiler to
>
>From AMD's suit against Intel. Perhaps relevant to some PG/AMD issues.
"...125. Intel has designed its compiler purposely to degrade performance when
a program
is run on an AMD platform. To achieve this, Intel designed the compiler to
compile code
along several alternate code paths. Some paths
