Barcelona and R600 to be a double release.

duby229 said:
No the platform is the hardware required to make a functional system..... You need a HTT controller to make the CPU work... It is a platform device. You need a SATA controller to make the harddrive work.... It is platform device....

Your definition of a platform is a completely built system, OS, and support, and marketing, and all.... Which is nonsense.. Maybe you should look up what an agency is...
Click to expand...

No, my definition of a hardware platform is the hardware necessary to run software. I don't know how this is unclear. The definition you gave is from Intel's own definition of a complete system platform. If you don't like it, take it up with them, I'm sure they'd like a good laugh of a single person like you claiming you know more than the entirety of Intel. I wish you would, it would be funny.

And you need a CPU to make any of those controllers work. What's your point? I feel like I'm going in circles. Would you at least acknowledge that every definition found thus far by any reputable source online disagrees with your definition of platform?

How is a CPU not required for a functional system? I don't suppose you've ever tried to boot without a CPU.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
re-read my post

I give up on the platform thing, theres no way to argue it because everyone will have a different definition

I never said or didn't mean to say backwards compability is BAD or GOOD when either company does it, I tried to say AMDs is FUTURE compatible because of the basic archecture of their CPUs , where as eventually as desktops get into quad and more cores they will need a new platform and cpu redesign

about a better archectecture, which I still believe AMD has, simply because it's modular, but I'm a programmer so thats possibly why I think that way ;P
Click to expand...

So AMD's cores are more modular than Intel's? Please explain.

And there is a way to argue the definition of a hardware platform. Take the commonly accepted industry definition. I've shown that AMD and Intel include the CPU as part of the platform. Is this in anyway unclear?

AMD's current chipset is not future compatible. Otherwise it would support the HT3 of Barcelona. It's the Barcelona that is backwards compatible. Read the other response that you got.
 
FreiDOg said:
440BX Slot 1 supported Slot PIIs, Slot PIIIs as well as Socket 370 PIIIs with a slocket converter.
Super socket 7 boards often supported both AMD K6-* and Via CPUs, and in the earlier days of Socket 7 isn't wasn't uncommon to see boards support K6, Via and Pentium MMX chips.
Any number of 945/955 based boards support Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad despite being released for Pentium D.
I'm sure there are other examples but I won't get into semantics over what is a 'next gen chip' vs what is a core refresh. (I'd put Barcelona squarely in the latter, but whatever).

I think you really point out the greatest downside to AMD's design, every change to the CPU necessitates a change to entire system. Single to dual channel ram, DDR1 to DDR2, Really the only reason Barcelona et al are backwards compatible is because AMD basically made all the improvements in the system interface for the new chips optional. AM2 doesn't support Agena and Kuma so much as the new chips were designed to work with existing boards.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the point.... Platform is architecture agnostic. About you biased view of AMD products I disagree with your assesment, but hey, to each his own...
 
duby229 said:
Which is exactly the point.... Platform is architecture agnostic. About you biased view of AMD products I disagree with your assesment, but hey, to each his own...
Click to expand...

I believe he said that a change in AMD's CPU required a change to the entire system.... Again, you keep saying things that have no basis in reality. Platform is CPU agnostic... crazy.
 
BigDH01 said:
No, my definition of a hardware platform is the hardware necessary to run software. I don't know how this is unclear. The definition you gave is from Intel's own definition of a complete system platform. If you don't like it, take it up with them, I'm sure they'd like a good laugh of a single person like you claiming you know more than the entirety of Intel. I wish you would, it would be funny.

And you need a CPU to make any of those controllers work. What's your point? I feel like I'm going in circles. Would you at least acknowledge that every definition found thus far by any reputable source online disagrees with your definition of platform?

How is a CPU not required for a functional system? I don't suppose you've ever tried to boot without a CPU.
Click to expand...

Ok so you admit that you view of a platform is an OS?

As I said my view is that a platform consists of all the devices required to make the system work... The HTT controller, the PCIe controller, the SATA controller, the USB controller..... Everything that plugs into these are components that the OS uses, to run software...

In your view the OS is the same as a platform.. There is not real difference at all. Everything you need to run software, is what the OS provides....
 
BigDH01 said:
So AMD's cores are more modular than Intel's? Please explain.

And there is a way to argue the definition of a hardware platform. Take the commonly accepted industry definition. I've shown that AMD and Intel include the CPU as part of the platform. Is this in anyway unclear?

AMD's current chipset is not future compatible. Otherwise it would support the HT3 of Barcelona. It's the Barcelona that is backwards compatible. Read the other response that you got.
Click to expand...

AMDs basic design using HT is what makes it more modular, because eventually intel will hit the bandwidht/FSB wall where as AMD will still have a bit more legroom(I'm guessing this starts to happen at 4+core systems)
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
AMDs basic design using HT is what makes it more modular, because eventually intel will hit the bandwidht/FSB wall where as AMD will still have a bit more legroom(I'm guessing this starts to happen at 4+core systems)
Click to expand...

But you just said that platform technologies such as HT and DCA are not part of the CPU architecture. So which is it?
 
BigDH01 said:
I believe he said that a change in AMD's CPU required a change to the entire system.... Again, you keep saying things that have no basis in reality. Platform is CPU agnostic... crazy.
Click to expand...

Which I clearly disputed, becouse he includes the CPU into the equation which doesnt fit. If AMD makes a change to the platform, like the memory controller, then yes. Or if they make a change to the platform, like the HTT controller, then yes.

The same is true when Intel makes changes to the platform, like when they moved to DDR2, or when they switched to PCIe....

You want to use these new features of the platform you have to upgrade, that simple.
 
duby229 said:
Ok so you admit that you view of a platform is an OS?

As I said my view is that a platform consists of all the devices required to make the system work... The HTT controller, the PCIe controller, the SATA controller, the USB controller..... Everything that plugs into these are components that the OS uses, to run software...

In your view the OS is the same as a platform.. There is not real difference at all. Everything you need to run software, is what the OS provides....
Click to expand...

I don't know if you can't read or what. I said the *hardware platform* is the *hardware* required to run software, in this case an OS. BTW, all of those controllers you mention require a CPU to run. Am I not speaking English here? Intel can't convince you, AMD can't convince you, nVidia can't convince you, the Linux Information Project can't convince you, Wikipedia can't convince you, Webster's can't convince you.

I will simply have to accept that you are so bias and so afraid to admit that the CPU is part of the platform that you would rather think wrong than be wrong.
 
duby229 said:
Which I clearly disputed, becouse he includes the CPU into the equation which doesnt fit. If AMD makes a change to the platform, like the memory controller, then yes. Or if they make a change to the platform, like the HTT controller, then yes.

The same is true when Intel makes changes to the platform, like when they moved to DDR2, or when they switched to PCIe....

You want to use these new features of the platform you have to upgrade, that simple.
Click to expand...

So you're telling me that I'll be able to get HT3 and DDR3 without replacing the CPU? Where do I sign up?

Changing the motherboard means I'll have to change the CPU to get platform advantages such as DDR3 and HT3. How is the CPU not part of the platform?
 
BigDH01 said:
I don't know if you can't read or what. I said the *hardware platform* is the *hardware* required to run software, in this case an OS. BTW, all of those controllers you mention require a CPU to run. Am I not speaking English here? Intel can't convince you, AMD can't convince you, nVidia can't convince you, the Linux Information Project can't convince you, Wikipedia can't convince you, Webster's can't convince you.

I will simply have to accept that you are so bias and so afraid to admit that the CPU is part of the platform that you would rather think wrong than be wrong.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying it doesnt matter what CPU runs it, the hardware doesnt care. I'm sorry if you think you twist other sources to you point of view, but it just doesnt work that way.

AMD says specifically that there point of view is that platform is the ISA, nvidia states specifically that platform is the kitchen sink, Intel says specifically that the platform is the kitchen sink, and your first born.

It is my opinion that a simple answer is the best answer. Your not going to change my mind....

You can choose to beleive that a platform is the same thing as an OS if you choose, but that wont change my mind in the slightest.
 
BigDH01 said:
So you're telling me that I'll be able to get HT3 and DDR3 without replacing the CPU? Where do I sign up?

Changing the motherboard means I'll have to change the CPU to get platform advantages such as DDR3 and HT3. How is the CPU not part of the platform?
Click to expand...

No I'm saying that those are platform devices, and are not part of the architecture.
 
duby229 said:
And I'm saying it doesnt matter what CPU runs it, the hardware doesnt care. I'm sorry if you think you twist other sources to you point of view, but it just doesnt work that way.

AMD says specifically that there point of view is that platform is the ISA, nvidia states specifically that platform is the kitchen sink, Intel says specifically that the platform is the kitchen sink, and your first born.

It is my opinion that a simple answer is the best answer. Your not going to change my mind....

You can choose to beleive that a platform is the same thing as an OS if you choose, but that wont change my mind in the slightest.
Click to expand...


Duby, you have no credibility to be challenging the definitions of nVidia, Intel, and AMD. I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong.

You also said that AMD has better prefetch logic, but I see you finally backed down from that.
 
duby229 said:
No I'm saying that those are platform devices, and are not part of the architecture.
Click to expand...

But the CPU contains the HT controller and memory controller. Is this not correct?

In addition, do any of those devices work sans a CPU?
 
BigDH01 said:
But the CPU contains the HT controller and memory controller. Is this not correct?

In addition, do any of those devices work sans a CPU?
Click to expand...

Location doesnt matter... It could be on a PCI card, and it would still be a platform device.

As far as prefetch logic, read up... Learn... AMD has some specific advantages over Intel...
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
when did i ever say HT is not part of the cpu archecture? are you confusing me with duby?
Click to expand...

Page 5...

Digital Viper-X- said:
Maybe you misread what I wrote, pretty sure I said I believe a platform is designed FOR a cpu archececture. So the cpu is not tecnically part of the platform, but the platform is designed around certain archectural designs of the cpu.
Click to expand...

CPU arch is not part of the platform. Can I not infer that from what you said? So are you saying that HT is part of the architecture or part of the platform?
 
duby229 said:
Location doesnt matter... It could be on a PCI card, and it would still be a platform device.

As far as prefetch logic, read up... Learn... AMD has some specific advantages over Intel...
Click to expand...

You said AMD has better prefetch logic. Show me some evidence like the technical article I linked. You can just tell people they don't know enough when you are confronted and proved wrong. You are clearly not one for debating.

And you didn't answer my question. Do any of those devices you mentioned work without a CPU?
 
BigDH01 said:
But the CPU contains the HT controller and memory controller. Is this not correct?

In addition, do any of those devices work sans a CPU?
Click to expand...

does the computer work without the power cable ? does that make it part of the platform
if you're talking about functionality dependancies then you're gonna get into a whole other issue, which is why I said, platform is like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder, and not only that , there are many different types of platforms!
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
does the computer work without the power cable ? does that make it part of the platform
if you're talking about functionality dependancies then you're gonna get into a whole other issue, which is why I said, platform is like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder, and not only that , there are many different types of platforms!
Click to expand...

No, the platform definition is in the eye of the companies that create them. You are simply wrong as there is a clear industry definition. Just because it's an opinion does not mean it can't be wrong.

As far as power, maybe we should consider the PSU to be part of the platform. Without it, nothing works and you must have specific PSUs to power your system (even wattage, correct power adapters, etc). It seems pretty important to a working system.
 
BigDH01 said:
You said AMD has better prefetch logic. Show me some evidence like the technical article I linked. You can just tell people they don't know enough when you are confronted and proved wrong. You are clearly not one for debating.

And you didn't answer my question. Do any of those devices you mentioned work without a CPU?
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter.... Does a computer work without a harddrive? Is a harrdrive part of the platform? No these are the components that the platform makes possible...

Without the platform these components wouldnt work. What about the power supply? Or the CPU cooler? Or the sound card? Are these platform devices?

No these are components that the platform devices support. Same as a CPU
 
duby229 said:
It doesnt matter.... Does a computer work without a harddrive? Is a harrdrive part of the platform? No these are the components that the platform makes possible...

Without the platform these components wouldnt work. What about the power supply? Or the CPU cooler? Or the sound card? Are these platform devices?

No these are components that the platform devices support.
Click to expand...

The hard drive is part of the platform, but not a necessary part. You can boot and run software from any I/O device. If you load and run software from an particular hard drive, then it is part of the platform and affects system stability and performance.

You seem to be so stuck on this idea that only controllers can be part of the platform. I have news for you, the CPU is the largest controller of all.
 
BigDH01 said:
No, the platform definition is in the eye of the companies that create them. You are simply wrong as there is a clear industry definition. Just because it's an opinion does not mean it can't be wrong.

As far as power, maybe we should consider the PSU to be part of the platform. Without it, nothing works and you must have specific PSUs to power your system (even wattage, correct power adapters, etc). It seems pretty important to a working system.
Click to expand...


well then lets throw in the input devices such as the keyboard and mouse, monitor, cooling, the wiring and power conduits, the power lines outside, the power company, and the generating station, and don't forget the raw resources used to create the power at the station, All of these things are needed for the system to run ;P

oh yea don't forget the user!
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
well then lets throw in the input devices such as the keyboard and mouse, monitor, cooling, the wiring and power conduits, the power lines outside, the power company, and the generating station, and don't forget the raw resources used to create the power at the station, All of these things are needed for the system to run ;P

oh yea don't forget the user!
Click to expand...

Then you've moved from one platform to another... the power grid. And it is true that they are all needed for the system to run.

If you'd like another definition:
How about all of those hardware components that perform digital logic, manipulate, or transport bits and binary information. Do you like that definition better? It eliminates power cords, heatsinks, etc (no matter that they are actually necessary). It also means that it includes all of the devices that are required to run software and aligns quite well with accepted industry definitions. Far better than a simple chipset definition.
 
BigDH01 said:
The hard drive is part of the platform, but not a necessary part. You can boot and run software from any I/O device. If you load and run software from an particular hard drive, then it is part of the platform and affects system stability and performance.

You seem to be so stuck on this idea that only controllers can be part of the platform. I have news for you, the CPU is the largest controller of all.
Click to expand...

If it is required for some other peice of hardware to work, then it is a platform device... If you want to talk about software, then we have left the realm of a hardware platform.

If you want to define a hardware platform, as software, then good luck to you.
 
BigDH01 said:
Then you've moved from one platform to another... the power grid. And it is true that they are all needed for the system to run.

If you'd like another definition:
How about all of those hardware components that perform digital logic, manipulate, or transport bits and binary information. Do you like that definition better? It eliminates power cords, heatsinks, etc (no matter that they are actually necessary). It also means that it includes all of the devices that are required to run software and aligns quite well with accepted industry definitions. Far better than a simple chipset definition.
Click to expand...

exactly what I was trying to say, there are different platforms,

Hardware platform
System platform
buisness platform
Software platform
etc..

which is why i said, a "platform" in general is too broad of a term to use, you're discussing a system platform, and duby is discussing a hardware platform
 
duby229 said:
If it is required for some other peice of hardware to work, then it is a platform device...
Click to expand...

And before you defined a platform as:
If you can plug something into it, then it is part of the platform....
Click to expand...

But you also include:
The Memory controller that makes the memory work IS... The SATA controller that makes the harddrive work IS.... The PCIe controller that makes the video card work IS
Click to expand...

You don't 'plug into' the memory controller, or the PCIe controller, or the SATA controller, you can 'plug' devices into various data bus and connections that interface with those components, but you no more plug into those devices than you 'plug' a CPU into the motherboard.
And that raises the question, on AMD, are the HTT controllers and memory controllers really part of the platform?
At least one end of every HTT link is on the CPU, and the entire memory controller, which you explicitly pointed out was part of the platform is entirely on the CPU. Does the fact that their configurations are completely dependent on what CPU you have in the system change your idea of HTT and MCH as part of the platform? You can't honestly say the HTT link or memory bus functions absent the CPU in a K8 based can you? Doesn't that, by your first definition make the CPU package part of the platform? Or are you going to argue that the HTT and MCH components on the CPU are part of the platform, but the rest of the die is not?
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
exactly what I was trying to say, there are different platforms,

Hardware platform
System platform
buisness platform
Software platform
etc..

which is why i said, a "platform" in general is too broad of a term to use, you're discussing a system platform, and duby is discussing a hardware platform
Click to expand...

No, I've already specifically said that I'm talking about the hardware platform. The CPU is part of the hardware platform... end of story.
 
duby229 said:
If it is required for some other peice of hardware to work, then it is a platform device... If you want to talk about software, then we have left the realm of a hardware platform.

If you want to define a hardware platform, as software, then good luck to you.
Click to expand...

I described hardware components and then said when put together they constitute a platform. Intel agrees with my definition of a hardware platform.

If you are blinded by pride, then good luck to you.
 
He can define platform however he'd like. That doesn't make his definition correct. [. . .] This would be like me saying that an engine isn't part of a car because a car consists only of the transmission, suspension, frame, body, and battery. Would you say I was correct or incorrect?
Click to expand...
No, I've already specifically said that I'm talking about the hardware platform. The CPU is part of the hardware platform... end of story.
Click to expand...
And that raises the question, on AMD, are the HTT controllers and memory controllers really part of the platform? ...
Click to expand...
*** Insert the next 10 posts debating the definition of "platform". Here ***
Click to expand...

A definition is a definition. It isn't really thought of (usually) as being correct or incorrect. I could define "airplane" to mean CPU for a given discussion, and there is nothing "correct" or "incorrect" about such a definition. One simply replaces the word "airplane" with the word "CPU" when reading; simple macro expansion. You may not like the choice of letters/vowel-sounds he decides to attach to a particular meaning, but his definitions are in no way incorrect. The beauty of human language is that is dynamic. New ideas and concepts can be mapped to arbitrary words on the fly; you seem to be fighting one of the most powerfull aspects of language by insisting that Dubby should not decided to attach the string "platform" to the meaning "most every other part of the computer besides the CPU and external peripherals" (or something close to that anyways).

For those that still can't agree, think about math. Does 'x' always refer to the same thing when dealing with some simple algebra? How about the Greek/Roman symbols? Is lambda always Plank's constant? No! Same applies with normal words people use everyday. Pronouns are a great example: that, this, etc. As long as one adequately defines the words/symbols one uses, there should be no complaint. In this case, Dubby made it clear that in his definition of the word "platform", the CPU is not included. End of definition, end of story. Anyone here claiming he somehow doesn't have a "correct" definition is simply wrong, and probably doesn't understand what it means to define something in the first place.

I have to say it is odd to see so many people fighting him on this issue. I get the impression that many are simply looking for some petty issue to prod him about...

BigDH01 said:
I think PCIe is pretty much being used instead of HTX. When CSI is released, there will be three different serial protocols in use, HT, PCIe, and CSI.
Click to expand...
You are probably right. Especially with the introduction of PCIe 2.0, I doubt HTX will catch on as a desktop standard. I'd still like to see it though... ;) There was some talk of HTX graphics cards out of AMD/ATI, but I haven't heard anything about it in a long time. While I thought this news was intended more for the HPC crowd (stream computing), there was some chance of a trickle down effect.
 
FreiDOg said:
And before you defined a platform as:


But you also include:


You don't 'plug into' the memory controller, or the PCIe controller, or the SATA controller, you can 'plug' devices into various data bus and connections that interface with those components, but you no more plug into those devices than you 'plug' a CPU into the motherboard.
And that raises the question, on AMD, are the HTT controllers and memory controllers really part of the platform?
At least one end of every HTT link is on the CPU, and the entire memory controller, which you explicitly pointed out was part of the platform is entirely on the CPU. Does the fact that their configurations are completely dependent on what CPU you have in the system change your idea of HTT and MCH as part of the platform? You can't honestly say the HTT link or memory bus functions absent the CPU in a K8 based can you? Doesn't that, by your first definition make the CPU package part of the platform? Or are you going to argue that the HTT and MCH components on the CPU are part of the platform, but the rest of the die is not?
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty clear what I meant... In the same sense as someone "plugs" into their TV's...

The HTT controller functions independant of the CPU.... Same as the memory controller.... They all communicate with each other through the crossbar. With Fusion, they'll also be adding a GPU... Does that count as being the CPU? Like I said location doesnt matter.. It could be on the USB buss, and it would still be a platform device...
 
BigDH01 said:
No, I've already specifically said that I'm talking about the hardware platform. The CPU is part of the hardware platform... end of story.
Click to expand...

No you already said you think the hardware platform is equal to the OS, they are one and the same...
 
duby229 said:
No you already said you think the hardware platform is equal to the OS, they are one and the same...
Click to expand...

There is no point in discussing anything further with you. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and are caught in some weird duby reality.

You've made plenty of claims in these threads that are patently false. I really hope that no one takes what you write seriously.
 
visaris said:
A definition is a definition. It isn't really thought of (usually) as being correct or incorrect. I could define "airplane" to mean CPU for a given discussion, and there is nothing "correct" or "incorrect" about such a definition. One simply replaces the word "airplane" with the word "CPU" when reading; simple macro expansion. You may not like the choice of letters/vowel-sounds he decides to attach to a particular meaning, but his definitions are in no way incorrect. The beauty of human language is that is dynamic. New ideas and concepts can be mapped to arbitrary words on the fly; you seem to be fighting one of the most powerfull aspects of language by insisting that Dubby should not decided to attach the string "platform" to the meaning "most every other part of the computer besides the CPU and external peripherals" (or something close to that anyways).

For those that still can't agree, think about math. Does 'x' always refer to the same thing when dealing with some simple algebra? How about the Greek/Roman symbols? Is lambda always Plank's constant? No! Same applies with normal words people use everyday. Pronouns are a great example: that, this, etc. As long as one adequately defines the words/symbols one uses, there should be no complaint. In this case, Dubby made it clear that in his definition of the word "platform", the CPU is not included. End of definition, end of story. Anyone here claiming he somehow doesn't have a "correct" definition is simply wrong, and probably doesn't understand what it means to define something in the first place.

I have to say it is odd to see so many people fighting him on this issue. I get the impression that many are simply looking for some petty issue to prod him about...


You are probably right. Especially with the introduction of PCIe 2.0, I doubt HTX will catch on as a desktop standard. I'd still like to see it though... ;) There was some talk of HTX graphics cards out of AMD/ATI, but I haven't heard anything about it in a long time. While I thought this news was intended more for the HPC crowd (stream computing), there was some chance of a trickle down effect.
Click to expand...

Actually, definitions can be correct and incorrect. We live in a society with certain norms, and many of these norms are well documented in the industrial and scientific community. If you start calling CPUs airplanes, no one will know what you are talking about as an airplane is already defined to mean something else. You can't just go randomly through a dictionary and start randomly reassigning words (actually, you can but people will consider you crazy). In this case, we have an industry-accepted definition that a hardware platform includes the CPU. People on this board can choose to define a hardware platform however they'd like, but it is wrong when considering the industry standard. The definition is set by the very people that build and create platforms. If they say that a platform includes the CPU, then the accepted industry definition of a platform includes the CPU. You can say otherwise but people will either consider you foolish or wrong. Can you imagine me telling Levi that their jeans aren't really jeans but instead are oranges? I would probably get admitted.

As far as your math example, "x" typically represents a variable so of course it doesn't have a clear definition. However, x has a definition in x + 4 = 5. Here, when x is placed in context, it is clearly defined. Imagine if Duby came and said that "addition" wasn't really the sum of two numbers but instead the product of subtracting a smaller number from a larger one. Would he be correct? No, he is trying to redefine a scientifically accepted definition of the word "addition." He would certainly not be taken seriously. Lambda is also a variable that represents Planck's constant when dealing with quantum physics. The definition of Planck's constant is very well defined in the scientific community. You wouldn't tell someone they were correct if they tried to redefine Planck's constant as 6.636..E-34, would you? Clearly you would not, as Planck's constant cannot just be randomly changed as people personally see fit. Duby can not alone change the industry definition of a platform because he thinks it is this or that. The industry clearly believes that the CPU is a hardware component that is one of the many components that constitute a hardware computing platform. No matter how much someone might disagree with the industry-accepted definition, the creators of said word (in computing terms) and said product get to decide the definition. Their definition is correct.

We've been slow in the migration to PCIe relatively speaking. Video cards made the transition quickly, but sound cards haven't done the same. I don't think the industry will make another sudden shift to HTX. Maybe in some high-end rare desktop part. Maybe a physics offload engine on a card attached to the CPU via HTX. That would be neat and add cheap processing power to workstations. We'll have to wait and see.
 
Why don't you guys just email each other a picture of your penis next to a ruler and stop butchering this thread.
 
BigDH01 said:
Actually, definitions can be correct and incorrect. We live in a society with certain norms, and many of these norms are well documented in the industrial and scientific community. If you start calling CPUs airplanes, no one will know what you are talking about as an airplane is already defined to mean something else. You can't just go randomly through a dictionary and start randomly reassigning words (actually, you can but people will consider you crazy). In this case, we have an industry-accepted definition that a hardware platform includes the CPU. People on this board can choose to define a hardware platform however they'd like, but it is wrong when considering the industry standard. The definition is set by the very people that build and create platforms. If they say that a platform includes the CPU, then the accepted industry definition of a platform includes the CPU. You can say otherwise but people will either consider you foolish or wrong. Can you imagine me telling Levi that their jeans aren't really jeans but instead are oranges? I would probably get admitted.

As far as your math example, "x" typically represents a variable so of course it doesn't have a clear definition. However, x has a definition in x + 4 = 5. Here, when x is placed in context, it is clearly defined. Imagine if Duby came and said that "addition" wasn't really the sum of two numbers but instead the product of subtracting a smaller number from a larger one. Would he be correct? No, he is trying to redefine a scientifically accepted definition of the word "addition." He would certainly not be taken seriously. Lambda is also a variable that represents Planck's constant when dealing with quantum physics. The definition of Planck's constant is very well defined in the scientific community. You wouldn't tell someone they were correct if they tried to redefine Planck's constant as 6.636..E-34, would you? Clearly you would not, as Planck's constant cannot just be randomly changed as people personally see fit. Duby can not alone change the industry definition of a platform because he thinks it is this or that. The industry clearly believes that the CPU is a hardware component that is one of the many components that constitute a hardware computing platform. No matter how much someone might disagree with the industry-accepted definition, the creators of said word (in computing terms) and said product get to decide the definition. Their definition is correct.

We've been slow in the migration to PCIe relatively speaking. Video cards made the transition quickly, but sound cards haven't done the same. I don't think the industry will make another sudden shift to HTX. Maybe in some high-end rare desktop part. Maybe a physics offload engine on a card attached to the CPU via HTX. That would be neat and add cheap processing power to workstations. We'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to redefine anything. I'm simply stating what a hardware platform is. You believe a hardware platform is the OS, I believe a hardware platform is the hardware that makes the other components work...

If your willing to admit a difference of belief, then fine, we'll drop it right here, but instead you insist on personal attacks, and name calling. I've offered to drop this several times, yet here you are still attacking my integrity.... Shame really....
 
Software platform: Windows, Linux, OS X

Business platform: Nvidia MB, chipset, vidcard, amd or intel cpu (probably leaning more toward intel now) and they would prefer not to piss off Bill and recommend Windows OS.

Hardware platform: Amd or Intel

You break it down even further: Socket 939 or LGA 775 or even Nforce4 or Via for older chipsets.

But I never hear of people saying they are on a Front Side Bus platform or a Hypertransport platform.

For me, an AMD platform isn't just the dfi motherboard.....it needs an amd CPU to be an amd platform. Not saying my view is right or wrong....it's my definition

I think where things got lost in this whole mess, is when "architecture" and "platform" somehow got thrown together. Amds architecture is way different than intels......no one can argue that. But when you say "Intel platform" you have to include an intel cpu, the same as saying an "Amd platform" you have to include an amd cpu. Otherwise you might as well say "Desktop computer platform" and throw everything together (which is what I think happened here) and be left arguing about what sub-components work better than others.

So......what else is new?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top