Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #252702 > unrolled thread

Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.freeware

Contents

  Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-19 01:50 +0100
    Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 16:17 +0800
    Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-01-19 16:04 +0700
      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:11 +0800
        Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-19 06:27 -0500
          Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 20:55 +0800
        Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-19 22:55 +0100
          Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-19 15:10 -0700
            Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-20 03:30 +0100
              Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-20 09:32 -0500
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-20 15:05 -0500
                  Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-20 15:57 -0500
                    Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads G. Morgan <sealteam6@osama-is-dead.net> - 2016-01-31 00:28 -0600
                      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-31 02:24 -0500
                  Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-20 23:47 +0100
                    AMD vs. Intel vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-01-20 23:21 +0000
                      Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 06:48 -0600
                        Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-21 19:30 +0100
                          Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 14:51 -0500
                            Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-21 21:18 +0100
                              Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 17:30 -0500
                                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 20:42 -0700
                                  Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-22 07:15 +0100
                                    Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-22 08:48 +0100
                                    Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:24 -0700
                                      Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-22 23:34 +0100
                                        Re: AMD vs. Intel Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-23 01:58 +0100
                                        Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-23 01:47 +0000
                                          Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-23 11:24 +0100
                                            Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-23 10:23 -0700
                                              Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-23 18:37 +0100
                                                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:23 -0700
                                                  Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-24 23:23 +0100
                                                    Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-25 05:04 +0100
                                                    Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-25 07:49 -0600
                                                      Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:06 -0700
                                                    Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:05 -0700
                                                    Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-26 08:02 +0000
                                                Re: AMD vs. Intel Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-24 19:06 +0100
                                                  Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-24 16:14 -0500
                                            Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-24 15:38 +0100
                                              Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-24 15:59 +0100
                                                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:25 -0700
                                                Re: AMD vs. Intel JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-25 08:11 -0600
                                                  Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 10:55 -0500
                                                  Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-25 11:07 -0700
                                                  Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-26 01:58 +0100
                                                    Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-26 02:05 +0100
                                                      Re: AMD vs. Intel Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-26 11:24 +0100
                                                        Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:17 -0700
                                                        Re: AMD vs. Intel Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-27 21:58 +0000
                                                      Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-26 19:55 +0100
                                        Re: AMD vs. Intel Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-23 06:20 +0100
                                  Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-22 10:13 -0500
                                    Re: AMD vs. Intel Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-22 11:57 -0500
                                    Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:27 -0700
                                      Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 09:37 -0500
                                        Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-23 10:28 -0700
                                          Re: AMD vs. Intel Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-24 06:21 +0100
                                            Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:29 -0700
                                      Re: AMD vs. Intel Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-23 13:06 -0500
                                        Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-24 10:36 -0700
                              Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 06:59 -0600
                                Re: AMD vs. Intel GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:30 -0700
                              Re: AMD vs. Intel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-22 07:25 -0600
                        Re: AMD vs. Intel Flasherly <Flasherly@live.com> - 2016-01-21 15:10 -0500
                      Re: AMD vs. Intel Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-21 21:23 +0100
                        Re: AMD vs. Intel Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 17:40 -0500
                    Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-21 10:40 -0500
                      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-01-21 12:16 -0500
                        Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:26 -0600
                          Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-21 11:31 -0600
                          Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-21 23:42 +0100
                        Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-21 13:08 -0500
                      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-21 22:31 +0100
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-20 20:29 +0000
              Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-20 11:53 -0700
                Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-20 20:59 +0000
                  Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-20 14:29 -0700
                    Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-01-21 05:44 +0000
                      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 14:17 -0700
                        Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-22 04:31 +0100
                          Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-21 20:44 -0700
                            Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-22 08:35 +0100
                            Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-23 06:13 +0100
                            Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-23 10:03 +0100
                            Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201601.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-01-23 15:39 +0100
                            Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Jeremy Bentham <nobody@anemone.mooo.com> - 2016-01-24 05:06 +0100
                            Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-24 10:39 +0100
                            Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-25 00:22 +0100
      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2016-01-19 05:09 -0500
        Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-30 08:07 +0000
      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-19 22:16 +0100
        Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex  Workloads Euclides Zoto <euclides_zoto@optimum.net> - 2016-01-18 18:20 -0800
      Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-30 08:07 +0000
        Re: Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-01-30 10:03 +0100

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#252702 — Intel Skylake Processor Bug Causing PCs To Freeze In Complex Workloads

http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-skylake-processor-bug-causing-
pcs-freeze-complex-workloads_177596

The mathematicians and community over at mersenneforum.org  
found a bug in the new 6th Generation Intel Core ‘Skylake’ 
architecture that freezes any system that has a Skylake 
processor in it when running the GIMPS Prime95 Advanced Exponent 
test. The Skylake processor bug is reproducible when using the 
Windows and Linux operating systems. Intel has confirmed that 
its Skylake processors are suffering from a fixable bug that can 
cause a system to freeze when performing complex workloads. It 
is possible that Skylake processors could be having issues with 
other complex compute heavy workloads that are used in say the 
scientific and financial industry.

Intel discovered and released a fix for the bug that is placed 
in the UEFI/BIOS of the motherboard the Intel Skylake processor 
is being used on. Since the fix is in the UEFI and there are 
hundreds of boards on the market, it means that Intel will need 
to work with each and ever one of its board partners to release 
a microcode update for all the impacted boards. We haven’t heard 
of any motherboard vendors to roll out the UEFI updates with the 
Intel fix incorporated just yet, but they are coming soon and we 
suggest keeping an eye out for your particular motherboard model.

http://www.legitreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/intel-
diagnostic-tool-645x405.jpg

Here’s what Intel has to say about the Skylake issues that 
happen in Prime95:
“Intel has identified an issue that potentially affects the 6th 
Gen Intel Core family of products. This issue only occurs under 
certain complex workload conditions, like those that may be 
encountered when running applications like Prime95. In those 
cases, the processor may hang or cause unpredictable system 
behaviour.”

Comments:

Christopher Gehlke • 6 days ago
this only affects CPU's with HT i heard? My i5 doesn't have 
this, so i should be ok ?
 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Hapkiman • 7 days ago
Prime95 is an unnecessary torture test of a processor, that and 
it was designed with totally different architecture in mind. It 
is no longer necessary and only causes extremely high temps on 
Skylake and Haswell processors. Temps they would never hit no 
matter what other load you put them under. There are many other 
ways to test for a stable system. I use my system several hours 
a day, and I know almost immediately if my rig has an issue. I 
don't need to punish it.
 • Reply•Share ›
-
Avatar
agentbb007  Hapkiman • 7 days ago
Probably true prime95 is overkill but I'm glad they found this 
bug because who knows when something like this might randomly 
affect different apps.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#252724

On 1/19/2016 8:50 AM, Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> test. The Skylake processor bug is reproducible when using the
> Windows and Linux operating systems. Intel has confirmed that
> its Skylake processors are suffering from a fixable bug that can
> cause a system to freeze when performing complex workloads. It
> is possible that Skylake processors could be having issues with
> other complex compute heavy workloads that are used in say the
> scientific and financial industry.

Implanted bug? Very likely....

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23)  Linux 4.3.3-300.fc23.x86_64
   ^ ^   16:12:01 up 17:08 0 users load average: 1.00 1.01 1.05
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252728

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:50:33 +0100, Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> Here’s what Intel has to say about the Skylake issues that 
> happen in Prime95:
> “Intel has identified an issue that potentially affects the 6th 
> Gen Intel Core family of products. This issue only occurs under 
> certain complex workload conditions, like those that may be 
> encountered when running applications like Prime95. In those 
> cases, the processor may hang or cause unpredictable system 
> behaviour.”

From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the
product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such heavy load
will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.

> Hapkiman • 7 days ago
> Prime95 is an unnecessary torture test of a processor, that and 
> it was designed with totally different architecture in mind. It 
> is no longer necessary and only causes extremely high temps on 
> Skylake and Haswell processors. Temps they would never hit no 
> matter what other load you put them under. There are many other 
> ways to test for a stable system. I use my system several hours 
> a day, and I know almost immediately if my rig has an issue. I 
> don't need to punish it.

Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252730

On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote:
>
>  From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the
> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such heavy load
> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.
> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.

This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory 
serves....

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23)  Linux 4.3.3-300.fc23.x86_64
   ^ ^   16:57:01 up 17:53 0 users load average: 1.02 1.04 1.05
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252738

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote:
>>
>>  From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the
>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such 
>> heavy load
>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.
>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.
> 
> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory 
> serves....
> 

*All* the processors have errata.

Haven't you seen an errata sheet before ?

This bug is "absolutely normal".

Here is a random sampling of an errata sheet.
Try around page 20. Every processor has an errata
sheet, whether Intel made it or AMD made it. Sometimes,
you read these and ask yourself "why is my processor
still working?". The descriptions are pretty terse and
leave a lot to the imagination.

http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/4th-gen-core-family-desktop-specification-update.pdf

The only embarrassing part, is a third party discovered
the Skylake problem. Normally, the in-house testing should
be finding these.

What's important, is to never release a product that cannot
be patched or bandaided later. And I consider it nothing
short of amazing, how well Intel and AMD have done with
regard to that aspect. They always seem to wiggle out of
this stuff, at least on their CPUs. The chipsets have been
another matter. It cost Intel quite a lot of money to fix
the Southbridge with the defective SATA port (I think it may
have had a transistor in upside-down).

The chipset bugs, those are less patch-able. And as you can
see here, quite expensive to "make it right". Some other
companies who make chipsets, haven't been as forthcoming
as this example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_Point

    "In the first month after Cougar Point's release, January 2011,
     Intel posted a press release stating a design error had been
     discovered. Specifically, a transistor in the 3 Gbit/s PLL
     clocking tree was receiving too high voltage. The projected
     result was a 5–15% failure rate within three years of 3 Gbit/s
     SATA ports, commonly used for storage devices such as hard drives
     and optical drives. Through OEMs, Intel plans to repair or replace
     all affected products at a cost of $700 million."

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252739

On 1/19/2016 7:27 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> *All* the processors have errata.
> Haven't you seen an errata sheet before ?
> This bug is "absolutely normal".
>
> Here is a random sampling of an errata sheet...

Reading... :)

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252786

In article <n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me>
"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote:
> >
> >  From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the
> > product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such heavy load
> > will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.
> > Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.
>
> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory
> serves....

Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs.  Most are not critical 
and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important 
enough.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252787

On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me>
> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote:
>>>
>>>    From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the
>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such heavy load
>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.
>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.
>>
>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory
>> serves....
>
> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs.  Most are not critical
> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important
> enough.
>
Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata 
sheets than Intel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252819

In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me>
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> > In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me>
> > "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote:
> >>>
> >>>    From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the
> >>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such heavy load
> >>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.
> >>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.
> >>
> >> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory
> >> serves....
> >
> > Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs.  Most are not critical
> > and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important
> > enough.
> >
> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata
> sheets than Intel.

Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features"

http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf

136 "No fix" in this one.

AMD had a shitwad too.  Really disappointed in AMD.  When they 
brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written 
for AMD.

http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252841

On 2016-01-19 9:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me>
> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me>
>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>    From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, and the
>>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such heavy load
>>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.
>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.
>>>>
>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory
>>>> serves....
>>>
>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs.  Most are not critical
>>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important
>>> enough.
>>>
>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata
>> sheets than Intel.
> 
> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features"
> 
> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf
> 
> 136 "No fix" in this one.
> 
> AMD had a shitwad too.  Really disappointed in AMD.  When they 
> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written 
> for AMD.
> 
> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf

Well, to be honest, the graphics department they inherited from ATI is
the only thing keeping the company alive at the moment. Their processors
are being ignored (except those who are looking for a decent mobile chip
with decent graphics performance) but their GPUs provide excellent
performance for a fraction of the price of an NVIDIA card. If I had a
desktop, I'd be looking long and hard at procuring an AMD GPU for $500
rather than an NVIDIA equivalent at about $800.

Either way, AMD's A10 and A8 chips are great for laptops but it seems
that nobody wants them.

-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter
"Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything
freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims
"Sound wasn't even a gauranteed thing on a PC in the 90s." - Linux
apologist JEDIDIAH explaining why sound never worked/works right in Linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252876

"Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n7o5k3$9rb$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2016-01-19 9:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me>
>> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me>
>>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, 
>>>>>> and the
>>>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such 
>>>>>> heavy load
>>>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.
>>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory
>>>>> serves....
>>>>
>>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs.  Most are not critical
>>>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important
>>>> enough.
>>>>
>>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata
>>> sheets than Intel.
>>
>> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features"
>>
>> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf
>>
>> 136 "No fix" in this one.
>>
>> AMD had a shitwad too.  Really disappointed in AMD.  When they
>> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written
>> for AMD.
>>
>> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf
>
> Well, to be honest, the graphics department they inherited from ATI is
> the only thing keeping the company alive at the moment. Their processors
> are being ignored (except those who are looking for a decent mobile chip
> with decent graphics performance) but their GPUs provide excellent
> performance for a fraction of the price of an NVIDIA card. If I had a
> desktop, I'd be looking long and hard at procuring an AMD GPU for $500
> rather than an NVIDIA equivalent at about $800.
>
> Either way, AMD's A10 and A8 chips are great for laptops but it seems
> that nobody wants them.
>

AMD is in trouble. They lost about $100 million dollars last quarter and the 
market-cap for the entire company is only about $1.4 billion. That's roughly 
the same market-cap as the company that makes Ugg shoes.

    "Advanced Micro generated revenues of $0.96 billion, down 9.7% 
sequentially and down 22.7% year over year"

I have nothing against AMD and wish them well. Looking at what they have, 
it's hard to see some silver-lining that's going to turn their fortunes 
around.

-- 
This reminds me of a Relf classic.

    "Testing is how you know
     if the  code works or not,
     not compile-time warnings."
     -  Jeff Relf

Heh.  One doesn't need to be a pro, to know how stupid that is...

New thread from turdv displaying his ignorance
June 13, 2014
<d6plp958n3o545aqg62banloa9sip3ds6n@4ax.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252887

On 2016-01-20 3:05 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n7o5k3$9rb$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 2016-01-19 9:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me>
>>> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>>>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, 
>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such 
>>>>>>> heavy load
>>>>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.
>>>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory
>>>>>> serves....
>>>>>
>>>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs.  Most are not critical
>>>>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important
>>>>> enough.
>>>>>
>>>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata
>>>> sheets than Intel.
>>>
>>> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features"
>>>
>>> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf
>>>
>>> 136 "No fix" in this one.
>>>
>>> AMD had a shitwad too.  Really disappointed in AMD.  When they
>>> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written
>>> for AMD.
>>>
>>> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf
>>
>> Well, to be honest, the graphics department they inherited from ATI is
>> the only thing keeping the company alive at the moment. Their processors
>> are being ignored (except those who are looking for a decent mobile chip
>> with decent graphics performance) but their GPUs provide excellent
>> performance for a fraction of the price of an NVIDIA card. If I had a
>> desktop, I'd be looking long and hard at procuring an AMD GPU for $500
>> rather than an NVIDIA equivalent at about $800.
>>
>> Either way, AMD's A10 and A8 chips are great for laptops but it seems
>> that nobody wants them.
>>
> 
> AMD is in trouble. They lost about $100 million dollars last quarter and the 
> market-cap for the entire company is only about $1.4 billion. That's roughly 
> the same market-cap as the company that makes Ugg shoes.
> 
>     "Advanced Micro generated revenues of $0.96 billion, down 9.7% 
> sequentially and down 22.7% year over year"
> 
> I have nothing against AMD and wish them well. Looking at what they have, 
> it's hard to see some silver-lining that's going to turn their fortunes 
> around.

When the stock drops, it might be interesting to purchase it with the
hope that they'll use their resources to deliver a decent product. I
still think that they can do it.


-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter
"Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything
freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims
"Sound wasn't even a gauranteed thing on a PC in the 90s." - Linux
apologist JEDIDIAH explaining why sound never worked/works right in Linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253681

Slimer wrote: 

>On 2016-01-20 3:05 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n7o5k3$9rb$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 2016-01-19 9:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>> In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me>
>>>> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>>>>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well, 
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such 
>>>>>>>> heavy load
>>>>>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.
>>>>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory
>>>>>>> serves....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs.  Most are not critical
>>>>>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important
>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata
>>>>> sheets than Intel.
>>>>
>>>> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features"
>>>>
>>>> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf
>>>>
>>>> 136 "No fix" in this one.
>>>>
>>>> AMD had a shitwad too.  Really disappointed in AMD.  When they
>>>> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written
>>>> for AMD.
>>>>
>>>> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf
>>>
>>> Well, to be honest, the graphics department they inherited from ATI is
>>> the only thing keeping the company alive at the moment. Their processors
>>> are being ignored (except those who are looking for a decent mobile chip
>>> with decent graphics performance) but their GPUs provide excellent
>>> performance for a fraction of the price of an NVIDIA card. If I had a
>>> desktop, I'd be looking long and hard at procuring an AMD GPU for $500
>>> rather than an NVIDIA equivalent at about $800.
>>>
>>> Either way, AMD's A10 and A8 chips are great for laptops but it seems
>>> that nobody wants them.
>>>
>> 
>> AMD is in trouble. They lost about $100 million dollars last quarter and the 
>> market-cap for the entire company is only about $1.4 billion. That's roughly 
>> the same market-cap as the company that makes Ugg shoes.
>> 
>>     "Advanced Micro generated revenues of $0.96 billion, down 9.7% 
>> sequentially and down 22.7% year over year"
>> 
>> I have nothing against AMD and wish them well. Looking at what they have, 
>> it's hard to see some silver-lining that's going to turn their fortunes 
>> around.
>
>When the stock drops, it might be interesting to purchase it with the
>hope that they'll use their resources to deliver a decent product. I
>still think that they can do it.


Sounds like a good short-sell on the contract market.



-- 

I met a guy today who said he was addicted to brake fluid!
But he says he can stop anytime.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253682

G. Morgan wrote:
> Slimer wrote: 
> 
>> When the stock drops, it might be interesting to purchase it with the
>> hope that they'll use their resources to deliver a decent product. I
>> still think that they can do it.
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good short-sell on the contract market.

You would price this information into the picture as well.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9231/amds-20162017-x86-roadmap-zen-is-in

I wouldn't trust such a P.R. announcement all that much,
but at least their executives are pretending they haven't
surrendered.

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252893

In article <n7op4t$r15$1@dont-email.me>
"Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n7o5k3$9rb$1@dont-email.me...
> > On 2016-01-19 9:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >> In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me>
> >> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> >>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me>
> >>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>    From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake well,
> >>>>>> and the
> >>>>>> product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed* that such
> >>>>>> heavy load
> >>>>>> will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.
> >>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my memory
> >>>>> serves....
> >>>>
> >>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs.  Most are not critical
> >>>> and get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important
> >>>> enough.
> >>>>
> >>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter errata
> >>> sheets than Intel.
> >>
> >> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features"
> >>
> >> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf
> >>
> >> 136 "No fix" in this one.
> >>
> >> AMD had a shitwad too.  Really disappointed in AMD.  When they
> >> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written
> >> for AMD.
> >>
> >> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf
> >
> > Well, to be honest, the graphics department they inherited from ATI is
> > the only thing keeping the company alive at the moment. Their processors
> > are being ignored (except those who are looking for a decent mobile chip
> > with decent graphics performance) but their GPUs provide excellent
> > performance for a fraction of the price of an NVIDIA card. If I had a
> > desktop, I'd be looking long and hard at procuring an AMD GPU for $500
> > rather than an NVIDIA equivalent at about $800.
> >
> > Either way, AMD's A10 and A8 chips are great for laptops but it seems
> > that nobody wants them.
> >
>
> AMD is in trouble. They lost about $100 million dollars last quarter and the
> market-cap for the entire company is only about $1.4 billion. That's roughly
> the same market-cap as the company that makes Ugg shoes.
>
>     "Advanced Micro generated revenues of $0.96 billion, down 9.7%
> sequentially and down 22.7% year over year"
>
> I have nothing against AMD and wish them well. Looking at what they have,
> it's hard to see some silver-lining that's going to turn their fortunes
> around.

They need to make the smaller processors more powerful.  That is 
why they are not selling.  It is purely a performance issue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252894 — AMD vs. Intel

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:47:25 +0100, Jeremy Bentham wrote:

> In article <n7op4t$r15$1@dont-email.me>
> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n7o5k3$9rb$1@dont-email.me...
>> > On 2016-01-19 9:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> >> In article <n7mc4p$ktl$10@dont-email.me>
>> >> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 01/19/16 14:55, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>> >>>> In article<n7kufj$v6o$1@dont-email.me>
>> >>>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang"<toylet.toylet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 1/19/2016 5:04 PM, JJ wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>    From what I can see is that they've haven't tested Skylake
>> >>>>>>    well,
>> >>>>>> and the product is kind of rushed to the market. They *assumed*
>> >>>>>> that such heavy load will never happen. Well, strike two, Intel.
>> >>>>>> Regardsless, it's still a fact that there's a bug.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This is NOT the first time Intel released a CPU with bug if my
>> >>>>> memory serves....
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Every Intel CPU ever released has bugs.  Most are not critical and
>> >>>> get fixed during the manufacturing life if deemed important
>> >>>> enough.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Even tho cpu vendors have errata sheets, IBMs have a much shorter
>> >>> errata sheets than Intel.
>> >>
>> >> Intel is like Cisco, bugs are "features"
>> >>
>> >> http://download.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/320836.pdf
>> >>
>> >> 136 "No fix" in this one.
>> >>
>> >> AMD had a shitwad too.  Really disappointed in AMD.  When they
>> >> brought those losers from ATI into the fold, the end was written for
>> >> AMD.
>> >>
>> >> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/25759.pdf
>> >
>> > Well, to be honest, the graphics department they inherited from ATI
>> > is the only thing keeping the company alive at the moment. Their
>> > processors are being ignored (except those who are looking for a
>> > decent mobile chip with decent graphics performance) but their GPUs
>> > provide excellent performance for a fraction of the price of an
>> > NVIDIA card. If I had a desktop, I'd be looking long and hard at
>> > procuring an AMD GPU for $500 rather than an NVIDIA equivalent at
>> > about $800.
>> >
>> > Either way, AMD's A10 and A8 chips are great for laptops but it seems
>> > that nobody wants them.
>> >
>> >
>> AMD is in trouble. They lost about $100 million dollars last quarter
>> and the market-cap for the entire company is only about $1.4 billion.
>> That's roughly the same market-cap as the company that makes Ugg shoes.
>>
>>     "Advanced Micro generated revenues of $0.96 billion, down 9.7%
>> sequentially and down 22.7% year over year"
>>
>> I have nothing against AMD and wish them well. Looking at what they
>> have, it's hard to see some silver-lining that's going to turn their
>> fortunes around.
> 
> They need to make the smaller processors more powerful.  That is why
> they are not selling.  It is purely a performance issue.

Performance-wise, their FX5G has plenty of horsepower -- but at 220W TDP, 
you're in a whole new world of hurt when it comes to keeping it thermally 
happy.  Meanwhile, Skylake (whose performance I'm sure runs rings around 
the FX5G) runs at 95W TDP.

Then you add in the fact that though AMD's Bulldozer architecture 
allegedly had "8 real cores", there was the recent scandal where we 
discovered that they have 4 FPU's per processor.  

Unless AMD comes up with something amazing, their goose may be 
cooked...possibly roasted over one of their processors.

(Not sure what that means for their GPU business, I use NVidia.)

-- 
 -v
Kernel:4.1.15-sd  Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2  Distro:Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa
CPU: FX4G ... with the components for a new Skylake system sitting behind 
me, waiting for some free time to build.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252935 — Re: AMD vs. Intel

vallor wrote:

>Unless AMD comes up with something amazing, their goose may be 
>cooked...possibly roasted over one of their processors.
>
>(Not sure what that means for their GPU business, I use NVidia.)

It would be a shame to lose that competition in the desktop CPU
market.  

At least AMD was there during those years when personal computing
equaled x86 computing.  With the rise of Android and iOS running on
ARM processors, it won't be quite so tragic if Intel becomes a
monopoly in the x86 space.

-- 
'(chrisv is) the same dimwit who thinks that determining if software
works or not is accomplished through "compile time warnings" and not
by actually testing the software.'  -  trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel",
lying shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252983 — Re: AMD vs. Intel

In article <0hk1ab9khi7re3rsfqatj9onm3s8fuune7@4ax.com>
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> vallor wrote:
>
> >Unless AMD comes up with something amazing, their goose may be
> >cooked...possibly roasted over one of their processors.
> >
> >(Not sure what that means for their GPU business, I use NVidia.)
>
> It would be a shame to lose that competition in the desktop CPU
> market.
>
> At least AMD was there during those years when personal computing
> equaled x86 computing.  With the rise of Android and iOS running on
> ARM processors, it won't be quite so tragic if Intel becomes a
> monopoly in the x86 space.

Yes it will because costs will go up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252997 — Re: AMD vs. Intel

On 2016-01-21 1:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> In article <0hk1ab9khi7re3rsfqatj9onm3s8fuune7@4ax.com>
> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> vallor wrote:
>>
>>> Unless AMD comes up with something amazing, their goose may be
>>> cooked...possibly roasted over one of their processors.
>>>
>>> (Not sure what that means for their GPU business, I use NVidia.)
>>
>> It would be a shame to lose that competition in the desktop CPU
>> market.
>>
>> At least AMD was there during those years when personal computing
>> equaled x86 computing.  With the rise of Android and iOS running on
>> ARM processors, it won't be quite so tragic if Intel becomes a
>> monopoly in the x86 space.
> 
> Yes it will because costs will go up.

+1. However, tell yourself that we've already reached the point where
performance is way more than enough for everyone's needs. Most people
will be just as well-served for their browsing and e-mailing needs by a
$300 computer as a $3,000 one. If Intel decided to be a bunch of jerks
(they already are) by raising the price of their processor because
they're suddenly a monopoly, I can guarantee you that people will simply
hold onto their PC for longer and repair it rather than replace it if
something goes wrong. If things are too slow, they'll probably find a
way to install GNU/Linux rather than run out and buy an entirely new
computer.

However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too
expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence and
computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the marketplace.

-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter
"Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything
freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims
"Sound wasn't even a gauranteed thing on a PC in the 90s." - Linux
apologist JEDIDIAH explaining why sound never worked/works right in Linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253004 — Re: AMD vs. Intel

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:14 -0500
Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> However, we're ignoring another possibility: if x86-64 becomes too
> expensive to buy into, PowerPC platforms might return to prominence
> and computers such as the AmigaOne might actually be noticed by the
> marketplace.
> 

ARM is big contender not PowerPC...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.freeware

csiph-web