pantherdan
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2001
- Messages
- 287
Now I am more educated, and understand that Intel isn't necessarily being evil (in this case).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by pantherdan
wwwwwwwwww if you want to enlighten someone who is not "in the know" that is fine. Coming off as some kind of superior being actually makes you look like a punk. Thanks for the divine enlightenment. You da man.
Was this code written by Intel that attaches itself to programs to make Intel products look better, or is this someething contained in some OSes, or is this something that is included in third party software?
I am sure I know why this is being done (because Intel is above the law)
the illegal monopoly style crimes that are being committed
I am thinking this is an Intel- Microsoft crime IMHO. It would be typical since both companies think they are above the law and have always attempted to crush the competition in any illegal manner they see fit.
If you are not an Intel fanboy, don't act like one.
just look at the freezing problems Folding@Home has been having with AMD CPUs.
Originally posted by Jason711
thats sort of what i have noticed...
it runs on amd chips (only k8?) the exact same (correct me if i am wrong)
and.. intel has put something in the code to make it only run on "pentium" based cpu's, which in turn, gives it a large boost...
therefore.. we throw up the bullshit flag.
now.. i guess it is their compiler, so they can do what they want.
or is it that simple?
"pentium" based cpu's, which in turn, gives it a large boost...
Originally posted by Plaristocrates
For starters, this is an Intel compiler...why anyone would expect Intel to thoroughly test their compiler optimizations on AMD processors is beyond me.
Stuff happens, even on CPUs who should run basic x86 code identically...just look at the freezing problems Folding@Home has been having with AMD CPUs.
Originally posted by Alf Alpha:
Put yourself in the shoes of a developer: you can either use this flag and add the increased complexity of managing and debugging multiple cpu-specific binaries or you can choose to ignore this flag and have a single binary.
This assures that -QxN will get rarely used. Intel must have some better reason to do this than pissing on AMD...
If your target market has a CPU that sucks on non-optimized code, are you going to make your product look bad by compiling it with gcc? MSVC++ or VB is better, but ICC is still the best for optimizing to the P4 platform.Originally posted by blvdKing
Why not use the Microsoft of gcc compilier instead of the Intel compiler?
I don't disagree with you...I didn't mean to imply that neither Intel nor AMD tests each others cores; of course they do. What I meant was that Intel probably doesn't test particular compiler optimizations to make sure that they work with AMD's cores, at least not with the kind of quality assurance they do on their own. If Intel were to have their compiler run the special code on AMD systems, they [Intel] would have to answer to their customers if the code turns out to break under certain conditions. I doubt that Intel wants to spend support time and money fixing issues with their competitor's products.Originally posted by CIWS
Why anyone would think that neither Intel or AMD has tested the crap out of their competitor's design is beyond me. Especially if that design offers some real performance advantages. Of course each company tests the others product(s), they test the crap out of them to see how they perform under a variety of conditions so they can understand what the level of competition is. Wouldn't you ?