Originally posted by Estuansis:

---

I think Afterdawn kind of IS my Computer Building Anonymous to be honest.

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

we shouyld all join computer building anonymus

---

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

im not normally biased (looks fondly at ASUS :P) but id agree to the intels just being that damned fast for number crunching.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I knew about the anti-AMD compiler for a while, but I don't understand this:
"I think everyone here that owns an AMD should press AMD to replace their CPUs with ones without the intentionally flawed compiler, and Intel should have to pay for each and every one of them!"
Compilers are what you write software with, not a hardware part of a CPU. Why would you need to replace your CPU? The issue is program-specific.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Reprogram every bit of software that's ever been made using Intel's compiler? I don't think so. It's realistically going to be a case of leaving the old software as it is, and then proceeding from this point onward in a more fair manner.

---

Quote:

---

Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler

---

Originally posted by Red_Maw:

---

Quote:

---

Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler

---

Personally I think that could be a bad idea, making intel pay a potentially crippling amount of money isn't going to make things any better except maybe make AMD fanboys happy. Moving forward from here is the best solution in my opinion.

Apart from that I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions before thinking the situation over thoroughly. While I do not agree with intel on how they wrote their compiler, I have never heard of any laws stating programs had to be compiled with it or of any regarding how one is allowed to write a compiler. I've heard mixed things about Intel's claims about their compiler, and in my opinion they should have been clearer on how it worked, but it's nothing more than misleading/false advertisement at worst (not saying that isn't bad). As far as I know the compiler was developed by Intel for Intel processors and as such I can see no justification for the government interfering with the programming of the actual compiler. If people don't like how it works they can use a different one.

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Red_Maw,
Here are the facts starting in section B, on page 10. These are the charges brought against Intel by the Federal Trade Commission last week! Please note, they have been doing this for more than 7 years. They first re-wrote the compiler in 2003 with the introduction of the Opteron for servers, to specifically slow down the Opteron's performance.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/091216intelcmpt.pdf

The bottom line is pretty simple. No one knew of the deception, although many did know that something wasn't right, but they didn't have any proof until someone actually discovered that by changing the CPUID to a Genuine Intel, an AMD would suddenly do so much better in benchmarks. It even violates the agreement both AMD and Intel signed, along with a 1.25 Billion dollar payment for damages awarded by the Courts.

Here is the a copy of the offending part of the agreement signed by AMD and Intel, last November 9th!




Intel has removed the offending parts for their latest version of their Compiler, and considers the problem taken care of. The Federal Trade Commission wants more than that as Intel's actions will continue to affect millions of AMD users for years to come, otherwise.

I don't know how it could be any clearer than that. In the end, Intel will have to come up with some sort of patch that negates the performance hit that AMD is taking right now, with any software complied with Intel's compiler. They don't have to do anything to improve AMD's performance, and they may optimize an Intel CPU's performance, but they are not allowed to artificially do anything to harm AMD CPU's performance. I, for one can't wait to see how AMD does when the playing field is leveled!

Oh! It is not a defective compiler, Intel's actions were deliberate and designed specifically to lower the performance of non-Intel CPUs, to make their own products appear superior!

Best Regards,
Russ

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Maw: I think perhaps you underestimate Intel's wealth. It would take an astonishing amount of money to 'cripple' Intel right now, even in the current financial scenario. Intel have done al they should be required to do, remove the code from the latest version of the compiler - every program from now on should be on even ground. Having to rewrite all the existing ones should really be an instructional - Intel should produce a bulletin for the software developers on how to recompile the software or whatever, but this is up to the software companies to implement, not Intel, it just isn't a doable task otherwise, and not every company is either going to still exist, or want to bother with all this.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Maw: I think perhaps you underestimate Intel's wealth. It would take an astonishing amount of money to 'cripple' Intel right now, even in the current financial scenario. Intel have done al they should be required to do, remove the code from the latest version of the compiler - every program from now on should be on even ground. Having to rewrite all the existing ones should really be an instructional - Intel should produce a bulletin for the software developers on how to recompile the software or whatever, but this is up to the software companies to implement, not Intel, it just isn't a doable task otherwise, and not every company is either going to still exist, or want to bother with all this.

---

Quote:

---

(Red_Maw)I probably have, although I would imagine replacing all the programs compiled with their "special" compiler would take an astonishing amount of money.

---