[GPL] Here's a thought...

The P4 bug is worrying, right? OK, so what we do is this: When WSC comes out, with its "completely open" architecture, we port *everything* - tracks, cars, addons, the lot - over to WSC. Problem solved! . . . Of course, this depends on WSC being available before a 1.7gig P4 is obsolete... -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.02) The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

>"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote > The P4 bug is worrying, right? No. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Why is not worrying to you? Do you have news of wonderful racing simulators coming out that will make us forget about GPL? And these are going to come out in the next 3 to 4 months?...because that's about how long it will take for the P4 1.5 GHz CPU to become the industry standard. Wake up. Marc. "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vK%M6.17880$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote > > The P4 bug is worrying, right? > > No. > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >

I agree with ymenard - the P4 bug isn't worrying to me seeing as it's going to take WAY more than "3 to 4 months" before I ever *see* a P4, that alone own one :0) Jim "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:H31N6.21495$[email hidden]... > Why is not worrying to you? Do you have news of wonderful racingsimulators > coming out that will make us forget about GPL? And these are going tocome > out in the next 3 to 4 months?...because that's about how long it willtake

Quoted text (25 lines)

> for the P4 1.5 GHz CPU to become the industry standard. Wake up. > > Marc. > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:vK%M6.17880$[email hidden]... > > >"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > The P4 bug is worrying, right? > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > -- May the Downforce be with you... > > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > > > >

>"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote > Why is not worrying to you? Do you have news of wonderful racingsimulators > coming out that will make us forget about GPL? And these are going tocome > out in the next 3 to 4 months?...because that's about how long it willtake > for the P4 1.5 GHz CPU to become the industry standard. Wake up. Like I said, "No." -- (I can see those guys in 5 years going "Papy fix the P6 4.5GH bug, we support you!!!!") -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

gotta agree with Ymenard it aint a worry to me, ill be happy with my new 1.2 GHz for a while, i cant see many apps/games coming in the near future that will require more than this. if the P4 thing is a worry to you, then you got too much money stick with something under 1.4 ghz and it should be fine if the probs are from those that are overclocking their CPUs, serves you right, if you really want that extra speed, dont be a cheapskate, go buy the CPU at the right speed Geesh its simple, dont buy what dont work ymenard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sR3N6.23466$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> >"Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Why is not worrying to you? Do you have news of wonderful racing > simulators > > coming out that will make us forget about GPL? And these are going to > come > > out in the next 3 to 4 months?...because that's about how long it will > take > > for the P4 1.5 GHz CPU to become the industry standard. Wake up. > > Like I said, "No." > > > > > -- (I can see those guys in 5 years going "Papy fix the P6 4.5GH bug, we > support you!!!!") > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >

ymenard wrote: >> "David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote >> The P4 bug is worrying, right? > > No. No, why would I waste money on a possibly flawed Intel chip? /Jens

Too bad for you...but that doesn't change the pace of change for the rest of us. Marc. "Jim L" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3C1N6.331$[email hidden]... > > I agree with ymenard - the P4 bug isn't worrying to me seeing as it'sgoing

Quoted text (41 lines)

> to take WAY more than "3 to 4 months" before I ever *see* a P4, that alone > own one :0) > > Jim > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:H31N6.21495$[email hidden]... > > Why is not worrying to you? Do you have news of wonderful racing > simulators > > coming out that will make us forget about GPL? And these are going to > come > > out in the next 3 to 4 months?...because that's about how long it will > take > > for the P4 1.5 GHz CPU to become the industry standard. Wake up. > > > > Marc. > > > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:vK%M6.17880$[email hidden]... > > > >"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > > The P4 bug is worrying, right? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > > -- May the Downforce be with you... > > > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

I'm with Marc on this one. This isn't a P4 bug, overclock your Cyrix and you'll have the same problem. "You got too much money" is a great answer to this :p Some of us use our computers for things other than GPL so it might not make sense to buy something slower for GPL. 486's used to cost hundreds of dollars not too long ago. I don't understand your attitude "No" this is a sim racing newsgroup for god's sake! Cheer UP!!! "Jim L" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3C1N6.331$[email hidden]... > > I agree with ymenard - the P4 bug isn't worrying to me seeing as it'sgoing

Quoted text (40 lines)

> to take WAY more than "3 to 4 months" before I ever *see* a P4, that alone > own one :0) > > Jim > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:H31N6.21495$[email hidden]... > > Why is not worrying to you? Do you have news of wonderful racing > simulators > > coming out that will make us forget about GPL? And these are going to > come > > out in the next 3 to 4 months?...because that's about how long it will > take > > for the P4 1.5 GHz CPU to become the industry standard. Wake up. > > > > Marc. > > > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:vK%M6.17880$[email hidden]... > > > >"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > > The P4 bug is worrying, right? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > > -- May the Downforce be with you... > > > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

WSC hehe, yeah, and we'll use GPAL to convert them :-) David Buttery <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> The P4 bug is worrying, right? OK, so what we do is this: > > When WSC comes out, with its "completely open" architecture, we port > *everything* - tracks, cars, addons, the lot - over to WSC. Problem > solved! > . > . > . > Of course, this depends on WSC being available before a 1.7gig P4 is > obsolete... > > -- > David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.02) > The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com > "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, > really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

On Fri, 18 May 2001 00:04:54 -0400, "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Why is not worrying to you? Do you have news of wonderful racing simulators >coming out that will make us forget about GPL? And these are going to come >out in the next 3 to 4 months?...because that's about how long it will take >for the P4 1.5 GHz CPU to become the industry standard. Wake up. > >Marc. And if you only use your computer for personal reasons, you probably won't need to upgrade for at least a year. Furthermore there's nothing wrong with an AMD chip.

Jens H. Kruuse <[email hidden]> wrote on 18 May 2001: >No, why would I waste money on a possibly flawed Intel chip? IT turns out it's a *speed* bug, *not* a P4 bug. *All* chips that fast will have problems. -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.02) The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

ra301z <[email hidden]> wrote on 18 May 2001: >And if you only use your computer for personal reasons, you probably >won't need to upgrade for at least a year. Furthermore there's >nothing wrong with an AMD chip. There is. According to those who know, this problem affects *every* chip, because it's a *speed* problem. Anything over 1.4 won't work, whatever make it is. -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92; Monsters of GPLRank h/cap +287.02) The GPL Scrapyard: http://scrapyard.9ug.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

David Buttery wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Jens H. Kruuse <[email hidden]> wrote on 18 May 2001: > > >> No, why would I waste money on a possibly flawed Intel chip? > > > IT turns out it's a *speed* bug, *not* a P4 bug. *All* chips that fast > will have problems.

In that case it does interest me. I have yet to hear or read of anyone actually experiencing this problem w/ an AMD chip, do you have a link or any other reference to the statement of somebody with firsthand knowledge? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to read what this person wrote himself. Hearsay is inadmissible in r.a.s. :-) (*Poof* where did half the posts go?) Cheers, Jens

Cancel that request! :-) Jens H. Kruuse wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> David Buttery wrote: > >> Jens H. Kruuse <[email hidden]> wrote on 18 May 2001: >> >> >>> No, why would I waste money on a possibly flawed Intel chip? >> >> >> >> IT turns out it's a *speed* bug, *not* a P4 bug. *All* chips that fast >> will have problems. > > > In that case it does interest me. I have yet to hear or read of anyone > actually experiencing this problem w/ an AMD chip, do you have a link or > any other reference to the statement of somebody with firsthand knowledge? > > It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to read what this person > wrote himself. Hearsay is inadmissible in r.a.s. :-) (*Poof* where did > half the posts go?) > > Cheers, > Jens

Based on what I've been able to obtain from the messages, the problem rotates around the fact that GPL only uses the lower 32 bits of the 64 bit value retrieved from the RDTSC instruction. For those not familiar with the RDTSC instruction it's a 64 bit counter that increases with every clock cycle. A 1 ghz processor would increase the value 1,000,000,000 times per second. Likewise a 500 mhz processor would increase the value 500,000,000 times per second. A patch COULD be applied to right shift the 64 bit value 1 digit then only use the lower 32 bits which should allow processor speeds up to 3 ghz. By shifting right 3 digits a processor speed of approximately 12 ghz should work. This still requires access to the source code to "squeeze" the shifting into the proper RDTSC references. "Jens H. Kruuse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> David Buttery wrote: > > > Jens H. Kruuse <[email hidden]> wrote on 18 May 2001: > > > > > >> No, why would I waste money on a possibly flawed Intel chip? > > > > > > IT turns out it's a *speed* bug, *not* a P4 bug. *All* chips that fast > > will have problems. > > In that case it does interest me. I have yet to hear or read of anyone > actually experiencing this problem w/ an AMD chip, do you have a link or > any other reference to the statement of somebody with firsthand knowledge? > > It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to read what this person > wrote himself. Hearsay is inadmissible in r.a.s. :-) (*Poof* where did > half the posts go?) > > Cheers, > Jens >

>"Mike White" <[email hidden]> wrote > Based on what I've been able to obtain from the messages, the problem > rotates around the fact that GPL only uses the lower 32 bits of the 64 bit > value retrieved from the RDTSC instruction. > > For those not familiar with the RDTSC instruction it's a 64 bit counterthat

Quoted text (10 lines)

> increases with every clock cycle. A 1 ghz processor would increase the > value 1,000,000,000 times per second. Likewise a 500 mhz processor would > increase the value 500,000,000 times per second. > > A patch COULD be applied to right shift the 64 bit value 1 digit then only > use the lower 32 bits which should allow processor speeds up to 3 ghz. By > shifting right 3 digits a processor speed of approximately 12 ghz should > work. > > This still requires access to the source code to "squeeze" the shifting

into > the proper RDTSC references. Wow Mykey I didn't know you were that much of a nerd ;-D You are right, it would totally make sense. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

I know nothing about code, OS language etc.. but Mike if it is correct then it *Will* be & *Easy* to patch GPL if you have the code...Yes? Thanx for the info Cheers Thom_j. | >"Mike White" <[email hidden]> wrote | > Based on what I've been able to obtain from the messages, the problem | > rotates around the fact that GPL only uses the lower 32 bits of the 64bit

Quoted text (9 lines)

| > value retrieved from the RDTSC instruction. | > | > For those not familiar with the RDTSC instruction it's a 64 bit counter | that | > increases with every clock cycle. A 1 ghz processor would increase the | > value 1,000,000,000 times per second. Likewise a 500 mhz processor would | > increase the value 500,000,000 times per second. | > | > A patch COULD be applied to right shift the 64 bit value 1 digit then

only | > use the lower 32 bits which should allow processor speeds up to 3 ghz.By | > shifting right 3 digits a processor speed of approximately 12 ghz should | > work. | > | > This still requires access to the source code to "squeeze" the shifting | into | > the proper RDTSC references.

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HtXN6.9015$[email hidden]... > >"Mike White" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Based on what I've been able to obtain from the messages, the problem > > rotates around the fact that GPL only uses the lower 32 bits of the 64bit

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > value retrieved from the RDTSC instruction. > > > > For those not familiar with the RDTSC instruction it's a 64 bit counter > that > > increases with every clock cycle. A 1 ghz processor would increase the > > value 1,000,000,000 times per second. Likewise a 500 mhz processor would > > increase the value 500,000,000 times per second. > > > > A patch COULD be applied to right shift the 64 bit value 1 digit then

only > > use the lower 32 bits which should allow processor speeds up to 3 ghz.By

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > shifting right 3 digits a processor speed of approximately 12 ghz should > > work. > > > > This still requires access to the source code to "squeeze" the shifting > into > > the proper RDTSC references. > > > Wow Mykey I didn't know you were that much of a nerd ;-D > > You are right, it would totally make sense. >

Sonny boy, I was bit twiddling before you were thumb twiddling :)

On Sun, 20 May 2001 06:41:04 GMT, "Mike White" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Based on what I've been able to obtain from the messages, the problem >rotates around the fact that GPL only uses the lower 32 bits of the 64 bit >value retrieved from the RDTSC instruction. > >For those not familiar with the RDTSC instruction it's a 64 bit counter that >increases with every clock cycle. A 1 ghz processor would increase the >value 1,000,000,000 times per second. Likewise a 500 mhz processor would >increase the value 500,000,000 times per second. > >A patch COULD be applied to right shift the 64 bit value 1 digit then only >use the lower 32 bits which should allow processor speeds up to 3 ghz. By >shifting right 3 digits a processor speed of approximately 12 ghz should >work.

Sounds like a 15-minute upgrade to me. :) Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

Mike White wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > A patch COULD be applied to right shift the 64 bit value 1 digit then > only > > > use the lower 32 bits which should allow processor speeds up to 3 ghz. > By > > > shifting right 3 digits a processor speed of approximately 12 ghz should > > > work. > > > > > > This still requires access to the source code to "squeeze" the shifting > > into > > > the proper RDTSC references.

One word. Sourcer. :-)) -- Fester

Got a spare 15 minutes to do an upgrade ? ;) -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> Ruud van Gaal <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Sounds like a 15-minute upgrade to me. :) > > > Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25 > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ > Free car sim : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

Nothing can happen to me, since I wisely put aside my trusty ol' P200 (No-MMX) instead of selling off that rocket. JensSchumi On 19 May 2001 14:45:53 GMT, [email hidden] (David Buttery) wrote: >There is. According to those who know, this problem affects *every* >chip, because it's a *speed* problem. Anything over 1.4 won't work, >whatever make it is. -- LWFF Ball Bearing conversion at: http://members.nbci.com/JensSchu/ GPLRank: -10.1 Monsters of GPL: sub 200