Elmer: Re: If you want to qualify it with "in my opinion" then that would be fine but otherwise you made a claim you can't possibly know.
I made the claim that functional errors that affect the performance of a processor are always exposed eventually. It is an intuitive statement, and unprovable either way. I tried to express the unprovable nature of this type of conclusion with a bit of humor in my last post, but I see the humor was lost on you. If it makes you feel better, everything that I write is my opinion unless I provide a link to something that expresses someone else's opinion.
Having said that, I suspect that your demands that I qualify my statement are another application of a ploy that you, and other Intel supporters, often use to deflect to direction and onus of proof of a discussion away from something that is uncomfortable for "your side". If you had a genuine concern for proper qualification of opinions, I would have expected you to be all over wbmw's statement: Traditionally, they've kept the real ones under NDA and only show a few innocent ones on their public sheet to fool people like you into believing that their CPUs are free from all faults. This is the first honest sheet from AMD that I've seen, and some of those "errata" would mean instant crashes, should one of them occur
Since you gave wbmw a pass on that obvious bit of opinionated FUD, and chose to demand a qualification from me on a virtual truism, I can only conclude that your motives are not genuine.
So, I will counter your parry by rediverting the discussion to its original topic by again asking wbmw for something - *anything* - that supports his outrageous claim.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
