The reason why the CPU versions of ABP2 are somewhat faster on Intel CPUs is probably the FFT library used, as FFT is the dominant factor of the runtime.
Yeah, I think that's the one. At Seti they got the same thing going for the Astropulse tasks, which run better on Intel CPUs than on AMD CPUs, even with the optimized versions and excluding the ATI/AMD GPU option also available.
Let's just blame Arecibo for not being able to work correctly on AMDs. ;-)
You're right, and I get that point. What I clearly don't get is an economy/legal system which requires one company to give any friendly consideration or 'intent' to shareholders of another company. Thus I don't follow the purpose of a commercial context/environment with such a high legislative risk in this aspect. ...
... Because to compete 'fairly' gives rise to good positive competition. Otherwise, it's all too easy for a dominant player to create market lock-in, and stagnate into then creating a business police state. There's various recent examples...
Just one example is for when Microsoft wiped out Netscape. The internet languished for years with Microsoft's IE6 where all further development was abandoned because there was no competition and no alternative.
"Dirty tricks" is very expensive for everyone and can stifle developments for many years... To everyone's detriment.
Microsoft and Intel have been given the largest fines ever meted out by the EU...
The real question is whether the fines and regulation will actually improve anything. I believe Intel came close enough to bankrupting AMD to have left permanent damage...
... Just one example is for when Microsoft wiped out Netscape. The internet languished for years with Microsoft's IE6 where all further development was abandoned because there was no competition and no alternative. ...
Perhaps the EU requirements upon Microsoft are finally having an effect after well over a decade:
... A suit settled last year between Microsoft and the European Union over a lack of browser choice might have helped knock IE below the 50% mark, according to Cullen. In Europe, IE holds a 40.26% share, down from 46.44% last September.
While web browser advances were few and far between a decade ago, competition among IE, Firefox, Chrome, Apple Safari and Opera has fueled new developments, including increasingly faster browsers. ...
Microsoft and Intel have been given the largest fines ever meted out by the EU...
But not for this.
I'd love to hear how you think the manager involved should have justified to his management spending the resources to assure the compiler worked properly with a competitor's processor that it was not even claimed to support?
And if you think that effort would have been resource-free, I'll beg to inform you otherwise.
This is a very, very tired subject on which you, personally, have posted endlessly--and if you think you have won the point because of a lack of disagreement--don't mistake tired silence for agreement or victory.
I'd love to hear how you think the manager involved should have justified to his management spending the resources to assure the compiler worked properly with a competitor's processor that it was not even claimed to support?
I too await .... but it's OK if I don't. I think a 'value disparity' exists. I really can't see the problem with AMD being specifically nerfed ( explicitly or otherwise ) in Intel labelled products. So there. :-) :-) :-)
More generally my 'distant perspective' comment was perhaps not seen as genuine. I expect disagreement but I look toward constructive comments. I really don't understand this recurrent tendency to maul successful institutions that clearly have great value, based on what seem at a distance some pretty vague & flaky 'higher' principles. My ignorance perhaps, but sometimes a fresh comment has uses. I do understand the points raised and the mechanisms, passing over the hubris. Can anyone see a danger of stifling innovation in the longer term, by enabling and rewarding pathways holding softer intellectual and practical options for company managements ( preferring litigation to innovation )?
I understand that people are commenting from within their own milieu, are evidently better informed of the detail than myself, and I thank you for enlightenment and correction. But it really and genuinely does look weird overall, so perhaps I've a missed a point of logic or somesuch re. friendliness to competing shareholders. That seems extra-contractual, or unpredictable and therein lies the ( longer term ) doom of companies, I think. A potential investor, in either company, has got to be saying "let's go elsewhere altogether".
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I'd love to hear how you think the manager involved should have justified to his management spending the resources to assure the compiler worked properly with a competitor's processor that it was not even claimed to support?
That's a very old piece of FUD.
The AMD CPUs (and any other competitor's CPUs) must be designed to follow the appropriate op-codes, otherwise they wouldn't have the x86 compatibility! I believe AMD even had a license from Intel for those features...
Openly documented BUGS are very different and far less time wasting than silently not doing what can be reasonably expected.
An analogy is at a franchise petrol station, one specific make of car gets the top grade fuel whilst other manufacturers' cars sneakily got fuelled with secretly lower grade fuel for the same price. I'm very sure the authorities would soon put a stop to that malpractice!
Quote:
And if you think that effort would have been resource-free, I'll beg to inform you otherwise. ...
The obfuscation from Intel has caused unknown vast wastage of resource for both users and developers...
Not to mention the wasted heat discussing it all...
The only people to have won have been the lawyers. You can judge for yourself whether Intel has fairly profited or not...
... I really can't see the problem with AMD being specifically nerfed ( explicitly or otherwise ) in Intel labelled products. ...
That's fine if the Intel compiler deliberately didn't work at all on anyone else's CPUs other than just Intel's.
Note: I am not a lawyer so there's no claim to any legal terms here for comment in the recent legal wranglings:
To deliberately include code to silently cripple normal operation has I believe been judged to be illegal and Intel have ceded that they will remove their cripple code. I believe it isn't in their latest compiler. I believe that was part of the damages they paid to AMD.
In a fair race, I wouldn't expect the lead runner to be spreading a trail of nails and bombs behind them to obliterate all competition... Or do "Dick Dastardly" rules rule?
Do you really think we would be better off without AMD?
In a fair race, I wouldn't expect the lead runner to be spreading a trail of nails and bombs behind them to obliterate all competition... Or do "Dick Dastardly" rules rule?
Sorry to point it out Martin, but you keep dodging the key question by divergent constructions. In your chosen analogous terms the racetrack has an Intel banner over it, an Intel logo painted on the ground, everyone has an Intel T-shirt on ( except the AMD guy ) and the entire area is plastered with Intel advertising. And Intel paid for it all to boot. I knew all of that many years ago when I bought an Intel compiler for myself. It said, and still does, that it is designed for optimising code for Intel products. There are plenty of other racetracks for AMD to go running at, including their own should they wish to pay for the construction of one. So why oh why does AMD believe, and hence yearn in the breach, in 'fairness' at this running location - specifically expecting shareholders of another company to pay for some later manufactured obligation to them, within a product they would never have contributed one iota to? What blindfolds, or pretense thereof, do they wear?
This is why the apparent definition of 'fair' seemingly used in this instance actually looks quite screwy from a distance. Maybe one wrong is being used to correct another perhaps, or somesuch, but it looks like a very dangerous precedent indeed.
AMD has competed to some degree - but by going to court and diverting effort away from exercising their core business technical skills. If this legal process has rewarded a business that manufactures legal fouls rather than better mousetraps, then such a system is truly doomed.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) If you do think that shareholders of one company should be accounting positively for the interests of shareholders of another company, then just say so! I won't think any the worse of you. I just can't work out what greater evil is apparently avoided by doing so, though. :-) :-)
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I think the sports analogies only go so far. In a market economy, it's not always supposed to be a level playing field for all, sometimes different rules will apply. I think the english term is anti-trust regulations.
[New analogy]
If economy is like a fish tank, then usually the fish are allowed to eat each other. That's competition. Suvival of the fittest. Fine.
But if there are really big fishes around that dominate 90% of the fish tank, and threaten the whole ecosystem because every single other species might go extinct, then different rules apply to the big fish. Protecting the ecosystem. Protecting competition because if there is only one survivor, there's no longer competition (and with only one fish dish available, consumers will complain :-) ).
[/new analogy]
So did Intel use their dominance of the CPU market and their strong standing in compiler market in a way that is bad for competition? Yeah, I think so.
RE: The reason why the CPU
)
Yeah, I think that's the one. At Seti they got the same thing going for the Astropulse tasks, which run better on Intel CPUs than on AMD CPUs, even with the optimized versions and excluding the ATI/AMD GPU option also available.
Let's just blame Arecibo for not being able to work correctly on AMDs. ;-)
RE: RE: The way intel
)
... Because to compete 'fairly' gives rise to good positive competition. Otherwise, it's all too easy for a dominant player to create market lock-in, and stagnate into then creating a business police state. There's various recent examples...
Just one example is for when Microsoft wiped out Netscape. The internet languished for years with Microsoft's IE6 where all further development was abandoned because there was no competition and no alternative.
The "Naughty Intel" story is started with:
Intel's compiler: is crippling the competition acceptable?
Just that one example lists a great deal of needlessly wasted effort just for the sake of "underhand nastiness" from Intel's Marketing department.
Two further examples:
Intel under investigation
Do Intel compilers still cripple AMD processors?
"Dirty tricks" is very expensive for everyone and can stifle developments for many years... To everyone's detriment.
Microsoft and Intel have been given the largest fines ever meted out by the EU...
The real question is whether the fines and regulation will actually improve anything. I believe Intel came close enough to bankrupting AMD to have left permanent damage...
Happy crunchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
RE: ... Just one example is
)
Perhaps the EU requirements upon Microsoft are finally having an effect after well over a decade:
Internet Explorer Browser Share Dips As Chrome Rises
... A suit settled last year between Microsoft and the European Union over a lack of browser choice might have helped knock IE below the 50% mark, according to Cullen. In Europe, IE holds a 40.26% share, down from 46.44% last September.
While web browser advances were few and far between a decade ago, competition among IE, Firefox, Chrome, Apple Safari and Opera has fueled new developments, including increasingly faster browsers. ...
Happy crunchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
RE: Microsoft and Intel
)
But not for this.
I'd love to hear how you think the manager involved should have justified to his management spending the resources to assure the compiler worked properly with a competitor's processor that it was not even claimed to support?
And if you think that effort would have been resource-free, I'll beg to inform you otherwise.
This is a very, very tired subject on which you, personally, have posted endlessly--and if you think you have won the point because of a lack of disagreement--don't mistake tired silence for agreement or victory.
RE: I'd love to hear how
)
I too await .... but it's OK if I don't. I think a 'value disparity' exists. I really can't see the problem with AMD being specifically nerfed ( explicitly or otherwise ) in Intel labelled products. So there. :-) :-) :-)
More generally my 'distant perspective' comment was perhaps not seen as genuine. I expect disagreement but I look toward constructive comments. I really don't understand this recurrent tendency to maul successful institutions that clearly have great value, based on what seem at a distance some pretty vague & flaky 'higher' principles. My ignorance perhaps, but sometimes a fresh comment has uses. I do understand the points raised and the mechanisms, passing over the hubris. Can anyone see a danger of stifling innovation in the longer term, by enabling and rewarding pathways holding softer intellectual and practical options for company managements ( preferring litigation to innovation )?
I understand that people are commenting from within their own milieu, are evidently better informed of the detail than myself, and I thank you for enlightenment and correction. But it really and genuinely does look weird overall, so perhaps I've a missed a point of logic or somesuch re. friendliness to competing shareholders. That seems extra-contractual, or unpredictable and therein lies the ( longer term ) doom of companies, I think. A potential investor, in either company, has got to be saying "let's go elsewhere altogether".
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: I'd love to hear how
)
That's a very old piece of FUD.
The AMD CPUs (and any other competitor's CPUs) must be designed to follow the appropriate op-codes, otherwise they wouldn't have the x86 compatibility! I believe AMD even had a license from Intel for those features...
Openly documented BUGS are very different and far less time wasting than silently not doing what can be reasonably expected.
An analogy is at a franchise petrol station, one specific make of car gets the top grade fuel whilst other manufacturers' cars sneakily got fuelled with secretly lower grade fuel for the same price. I'm very sure the authorities would soon put a stop to that malpractice!
The obfuscation from Intel has caused unknown vast wastage of resource for both users and developers...
Not to mention the wasted heat discussing it all...
The only people to have won have been the lawyers. You can judge for yourself whether Intel has fairly profited or not...
Regards,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
RE: ... I really can't see
)
That's fine if the Intel compiler deliberately didn't work at all on anyone else's CPUs other than just Intel's.
Note: I am not a lawyer so there's no claim to any legal terms here for comment in the recent legal wranglings:
To deliberately include code to silently cripple normal operation has I believe been judged to be illegal and Intel have ceded that they will remove their cripple code. I believe it isn't in their latest compiler. I believe that was part of the damages they paid to AMD.
In a fair race, I wouldn't expect the lead runner to be spreading a trail of nails and bombs behind them to obliterate all competition... Or do "Dick Dastardly" rules rule?
Do you really think we would be better off without AMD?
As always, judge for yourselves.
Regards,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
RE: In a fair race, I
)
Sorry to point it out Martin, but you keep dodging the key question by divergent constructions. In your chosen analogous terms the racetrack has an Intel banner over it, an Intel logo painted on the ground, everyone has an Intel T-shirt on ( except the AMD guy ) and the entire area is plastered with Intel advertising. And Intel paid for it all to boot. I knew all of that many years ago when I bought an Intel compiler for myself. It said, and still does, that it is designed for optimising code for Intel products. There are plenty of other racetracks for AMD to go running at, including their own should they wish to pay for the construction of one. So why oh why does AMD believe, and hence yearn in the breach, in 'fairness' at this running location - specifically expecting shareholders of another company to pay for some later manufactured obligation to them, within a product they would never have contributed one iota to? What blindfolds, or pretense thereof, do they wear?
This is why the apparent definition of 'fair' seemingly used in this instance actually looks quite screwy from a distance. Maybe one wrong is being used to correct another perhaps, or somesuch, but it looks like a very dangerous precedent indeed.
AMD has competed to some degree - but by going to court and diverting effort away from exercising their core business technical skills. If this legal process has rewarded a business that manufactures legal fouls rather than better mousetraps, then such a system is truly doomed.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) If you do think that shareholders of one company should be accounting positively for the interests of shareholders of another company, then just say so! I won't think any the worse of you. I just can't work out what greater evil is apparently avoided by doing so, though. :-) :-)
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I am not a hardware guru but
)
I am not a hardware guru but isn't an AMD feature, in memory management I believe, that Intel chips have recently adopted?
Tullio
Hi I think the sports
)
Hi
I think the sports analogies only go so far. In a market economy, it's not always supposed to be a level playing field for all, sometimes different rules will apply. I think the english term is anti-trust regulations.
[New analogy]
If economy is like a fish tank, then usually the fish are allowed to eat each other. That's competition. Suvival of the fittest. Fine.
But if there are really big fishes around that dominate 90% of the fish tank, and threaten the whole ecosystem because every single other species might go extinct, then different rules apply to the big fish. Protecting the ecosystem. Protecting competition because if there is only one survivor, there's no longer competition (and with only one fish dish available, consumers will complain :-) ).
[/new analogy]
So did Intel use their dominance of the CPU market and their strong standing in compiler market in a way that is bad for competition? Yeah, I think so.
CU
HB