Re: Clarifications about AMD TLB L3 bug

chrisv wrote:
>>In addition to this very valid commercial argument, there is also a
>>fundamental difference between this AMD "bug" and the Intel FDIV bug:
>>the AMD bug might slow machines a bit under unusual cir***stances.
>>The Intel FDIV bug gave erronious results in a few cases.
>>People worry _far_ more about data corruption than machine speed.  
>>The FDIV bug might well have sunk AMD.  This will not.
> 
> Huh?  Were there not work-arounds for the FDIV bug that eliminated the
> chance for "data corruption"? 

Nope. Nothing except not using FDIV instructions (and emulating it in 
software). If every piece of software was not individually patched (with 
performance effects of course) users coul'd not belive the results of FP 
division of their chips.

> Really, from my understanding, the FDIV
> bug affected only a TINY percentage of users.

But it affected seriuos users.

> The AMD's bug affects
> EVERYONE.

EVERYONE of the few who bought the thing. Not too many. And the workaround

works once and for all. Costing performance. But still the thing is faster

than others company offerings (as it's still not enough to counter Core2
is 
another matter).

rgds
\SK