🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <579hcc$5d2@paperboy.ids.net> zarlenga@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) writes:
>Are there any functional differences at all between the AMD
>K5 CPU and the Intel i586 ("Genuine Pentium") CPU?
>
>Is the AMD K5 chip made under license agreement with Intel,
>hence the functional equivalent of the i586?  And, if made
>under license agreement, I presume the process and surface
>masks are identical, yes?
>
>Are there any reasons why the K5 might be an inferior CPU
>when compared to a "Genuine Pentium," functionally?

Once upon a time, there was a little company called "Intel".  They had a 
BIG problem, becuase they were competing with another company, and didn't
have enough resources to build chips.  They then asked some other companies,
one of which was AMD, to help them out.  In order for them to do this, they
had to give them license, etc....  

Eventually, intel got enough resources where they wanted to go alone, but those
danged licenses got in the way.  They tried twice to get everyone to change 
processors, but the old licensees managed to keep up.  So intel SUED and SUED
and SUED!  

Finally, they won.  AMD and the like couldn't use any of the old information,
at least not that under NDA.  And so, to this day, they DON'T use it!  If they
did, Intel would sue their pants off!

NONE of the pentium competitors use the same mask.  In fact, the AMD K5 core
is NOT even pentium compatible!  It is a RISC processor.  Of course, other
circuitry hides this fact from you, and the resultant chip looks every bit
like a pentium.  The Floating point is a little slower.  Other things are
a bit faster.

Steve
 

>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
>   finger zarlenga@conan.ids.net  for PGP public key
>   Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne.

Even though you knew he had NO chance?
I voted for perot in 1992, though I knew he had little chance.  NOW, I am
embarased by it!  Dole lost by very little.  They announced Clinton the winner
of a state when LESS than 50% of the votes were counted. 

Back when there were THOUSANDS of votes to be counted, and dornan was losing
by only 200, the Democrats declared him a LOSER, and said he should give up.

How would they have reacted if I had gotten up, heard that DOLE had 50% MORE
votes than Clinton, and declared HIM the winner, with about 80 million left
to be counted?

My point?  Dornan SUPPOSEDLY lost by less than 9000.  Voter fraud is FACT, in
fact a show a few days before the election found ONE district where at least
14,000 voter registrations were fraudulant!  Cats, dogs, parakeets, and dead 
people were registered.  Also, some people were listed 5 times!
Dole lost by fewer votes than perot got!  Kennedy one by only 5 votes per
district!  

>
>       "Are you freer today than you were 4 years ago?"

I am LESS free than I was 4 years ago.  The person in charge of the budget is
going to be in charge until 2000, and he said he expected taxes to be 82% by
2002!  He really ought to read all the different histories of like the
BOSTON TEA PARTY
CREATION of the U.S.
CREATION of the magna carta
ETC......