Re: Clarifications about AMD TLB L3 bug

Robert Myers wrote:
>>>What's the difference between this and Intel's botched FDIV bug?
>>>Very, very simple.  At the time of the FDIV bug, x86 was for
>>>"peecees," and no one cared if Intel made mistakes that IBM (or DEC or
>>>Sun) never would.  Now they do.
>>
>>What a nonsense!
>>
>>You know what is the difference?
>>There is a workaround for this AMD bug, like there are for Inte's TLB
bus in
>>their Core2 Duos. Both AMD & Intel fixes reduce the perofrmance a bit.
> 
> The workaround costs anywhere from 5% (one of AMD's numbers) to 50%
> (other's numbers, naturally) in performance.

Yeah, sure. Maybe it's 200%! Or maye 199929292%...

It may be 50% in some artificial test.

> You think that's
> acceptable?

Whatever. It's going to be fixed as many eralier bug from both Amd & Intel

(and Dec & IBM & Sun &...)


> AMD bought it on this one.  Perhaps AMD should have had
> you go out and address investors.  You'd have been a big hit.
> 
> Your comment that "both AMD & Intel fixes reduce the perofrmance [sic]
> a bit" is like Yousuf coming out with the item about Intel's bug right
> after the AMD bug, as if they canceled one another out.  Go look at
> the financial press,

Whatever. Finacial press is a poor source of techical info.


> and see if anyone but AMDroids (or anyone that
> matters) reads it that way.

Whatever. Such recalls do happen. It's a seruoius blow to AMD (as it
delays 
their more competitive products and causes the to loose Christmast
season), 
but such things are none the less reality and they do happen to everyone 
from time to time. AMD has still enough money to wether that one (with
their 
current burning rate then can go for about 2 more years). And some of that

buring is one time (ATI acquisition costs are big, but one time expense)


>>You know what is the difference? There was no fix for FDIV bug at all.
>>Reducing performance slightly or not. The buggy stuff was hard coded and
not
>>bypassable. Intel has learned from that disaster and AMD has too.
>>
>>>>>2. TRUTH: A fix is available under NDA for RHEL 4 and not otherwise
>>>>>apparently.
>>
>>>>>http://techre****t.com/discussions.x/13721
>>
>>>>>http://techre****t.com/discussions.x/13724
>>
>>>>How secret can it be if it's open-source?
>>
>>>How is part of SUSE kept proprietary?
>>
>>Go buy a little clue and read how GPL works. Then you'll know that parts
>>which are not derived work of the GPL Linux kernel can be proprietary
and
>>how those which are dervied work (as such patch has to) can not.
>>
>>BTW. The patch is public, so the point is moot, you're just spreading
>>unfounded FUD.
> 
> If you can't be bothered to read the entire thread,

I did read it. That's the very reason i put the above BTW.


> then I can't be
> bothered to respond.

Yet you responded :)
Your response is practically empty (of course), but it's here.


rgds
\SK