Make an AMV. Buy a Powerbook.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:17 pm

dwchang wrote: The Pentium II and Pentium III have big changes in the architecture in the pipeline stages themselves, the super-scalarness (ha a new word) and memory. You're very mistaken on this one and this is coming from a Computer Architect.

That is contrary to what I've been told by a large number of hackers, magazines, and computer historians, who all agree that both processors used the P6 core. But maybe you're right and they're all wrong (seriously, I mean it).

dwchang wrote:The Celeron of course is still just a modified P4/P3 and IMO sucks ass. Just another way Intel has duped consumers into buying crap, but then again this is coming from an AMD Computer Engineer.

No, your AMD employee status isn't biasing you this time; I agree with you on all of that except the "P4/P3" part. The P3 and P4 use different architectures, the Celeron can't be a ripoff of both

(especially since the P4 came out after the Celeron...)

NicholasDWolfwood · Post by **NicholasDWolfwood** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:18 pm

So?

Just because a chip came out after the Celeron doesn't mean Intel couldn't have used say a developmental architecture.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:51 pm

the Black Monarch wrote:
That is contrary to what I've been told by a large number of hackers, magazines, and computer historians, who all agree that both processors used the P6 core. But maybe you're right and they're all wrong (seriously, I mean it).

Not to be mean, but hackers and magazines aren't really the most qualified people to be saying something like that since they don't...well..design computers. Computer architects are the only ones who can state such claims since they know the designs. Also when Intel moves from PX -> PX+1, that's because it's a new archictecture. I hear P5 is on the way soon.

As for P6, I think you made a typo

.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:52 pm

NicholasDWolfwood wrote:So?

Just because a chip came out after the Celeron doesn't mean Intel couldn't have used say a developmental architecture.

but Celerons came out AFTER the PIII and is based on it's core, not the other way around.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:28 pm

dwchang wrote:As for P6, I think you made a typo

Oh my god... I don't want to rain on your parade DW, but I think you just showed that you don't know as much about CPU architecture as you'd like us all to think. The P6 core formed the basis of the Pentium Pro/2/3/Celeron. It was so named because if Intel had continued numering their processors (286, 386, 486), the Pentium would have been the 5x86 (hence the name, pent- being a prefix meaning five) and the Pentium Pro would have been the 6x86. Extrapolating, the P4 would be the 7x86 and the Opteron will be the first 8th-generation CPU.

This is supported by the movie "Hackers," wherein Angelina Jolie's laptop is said to have a "P6 processor - three times faster than a Pentium" (no, this movie was not my primary source of information on this subject

[although my friend George claims that he personally knows the real Zero Cool/Crash Override, who he says now goes by the name Death Veggie])

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:32 pm

the Black Monarch wrote: Oh my god... I don't want to rain on your parade DW, but I think you just showed that you don't know as much about CPU architecture as you'd like us all to think.

No, you see...when we're talking in terms like "P3" and "P4" and whatnot..it's easy to assume you made a typo with the "6" in front of the "P." I don't think I need to say much more than that since it makes sense....was only trying to correct a suposed error, but whatever.

Oh and I don't need to prove anything to you since I have a degree from the nation's #2 or 3 Computer Engineer College and have a job in these horrible times at a Computer Firm. If you have any credentials above this, feel free to share them. If people believe me, fine if not, oh well too. I have quite a few architecture, logic design and coding classes under my belt so...whatever.

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:38 pm

Oh yeah... well... I own controlling interests of both Intel AND AMD... and I invented the Internet! I'm also the reason the sun rises every morning... SO THERE!

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:54 am

dwchang wrote:No, you see...when we're talking in terms like "P3" and "P4" and whatnot..it's easy to assume you made a typo with the "6" in front of the "P." I don't think I need to say much more than that since it makes sense....was only trying to correct a suposed error, but whatever.

Oh good, you knew about the P6 core. I was afraid you'd lost your mind and were just bullshitting us...

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 9:48 am

the Black Monarch wrote:
dwchang wrote:No, you see...when we're talking in terms like "P3" and "P4" and whatnot..it's easy to assume you made a typo with the "6" in front of the "P." I don't think I need to say much more than that since it makes sense....was only trying to correct a suposed error, but whatever.
Oh good, you knew about the P6 core. I was afraid you'd lost your mind and were just bullshitting us...

Well y'see...when one has P infront of most ot the terms...one would assuming seeing a "6" when the other numbers are 3 and 4 that someone made a typo or has some really good information/rumors since I've only heard about the P5.

I do know that the Pentium PRO was called the P6 at times, but obviously if you said Pentium Pro, I would've known better. Oh and you're of course right on the...6, 7 and 8 numbering systems for generations since Athlons are K7 and Operons are K8 and in the past we had K6's....so yeah...I know about the generation thing...just thought a typo or a juicy rumor

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 9:52 pm

Speaking of juicy rumors, do you have any new ones for us?