From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261370AbUBWCRs (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:17:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261781AbUBWCRs (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:17:48 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]:6300 "EHLO sccrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261370AbUBWCRr (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:17:47 -0500 Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:17:41 -0500 From: Tom Vier To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64 Message-ID: <20040223021741.GC29720@zero> Reply-To: Tom Vier References: <16435.14044.182718.134404@alkaid.it.uu.se> <20040222025957.GA31813@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <40382C47.70603@coyotegulch.com> <40394BA3.4070307@techsource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40394BA3.4070307@techsource.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:38:59PM -0500, Timothy Miller wrote: > In theory, IEEE FP is IEEE FP, but it seems that Intel may have cheated > in their design, silently reducing precision for the sake of some other > aspect of their design, making their processors less useful (or > useless?) for scientific applications. Another example of Intel > arrogance? Or perhaps a reasonable design compromise? You decide. did they use -miiie? was the same compiler (exact same version) used? if the answer to either is no, that would account for the difference. -- Tom Vier DSA Key ID 0xE6CB97DA