Native Quad Core?

[khuyakuya]

if someone else tells u otherwise they are wrong. Kentsfield is not native quad. It is quad but not natively. Native Dualcore refers to two cores in a single die. Native Quadcore refers to four cores on a single die. That simple end of story.

 

[khuyakuya]

AMD's plan for quad core isn't "native" either... its slapped together with a shared L3 to "tie the cores together".

L3's are band-aid fixes. Like the Xeon's & Gallatins (XE) had an L3 to help compensate for their weak bandwidth issues.

Kentsfield will not be native, but the next revision of Intel's quad core at 45nm will be native with a shared L2 cache.

if that L3 cache and all four cores are on one die its Native Quad.

 

[savantu]

if someone else tells u otherwise they are wrong. Kentsfield is not native quad. It is quad but not natively. Native Dualcore refers to two cores in a single die. Native Quadcore refers to four cores on a single die. That simple end of story.

So PD 8xx Smithfield is a native dual core ? Interesting...

 

[InorganicMatter]

if someone else tells u otherwise they are wrong. Kentsfield is not native quad. It is quad but not natively. Native Dualcore refers to two cores in a single die. Native Quadcore refers to four cores on a single die. That simple end of story.

But why are you guys acting like that's so good? K8L is four cores on a die, but they are glued together with some L3 cache (didn't AMD fans once refer to cache as a "gimmick" back in the P4 days?). If that's all it takes to be native, maybe we don't want native. Maybe Intel's FSB connection technique is *gasp* better? Maybe "native" != performance?!?

 

[spectrumbx]

But that's a point as well. That's one 120W Quad core vs. two Dual core FX-7x processor that are speced for 125W* worse case, EACH. Even if they run at Half that temp, that's still higher than Kentsfield.
...

There is no way in hell that I would choose FX-7x over Kentsfield. I wouldn't even compare them.
If Intel wanted to go the same gimmick route, we would have 8 cores over two sockets.
This is the part where Kentsfield has its merits.

Native 4 cores on one die will only happen on the 45nm process, which will be late next year.

 

[Scali2]

Some thoughts...
1) Core2 Duo > Athlon64 FX, hence 2*Core2 Duo > 2*Athlon64 FX. That is my suspicion anyway. I know that Kentsfield is less than optimal, and Quadfather might have some advantage designwise, but I see Core2 having a big lead, so I think they'll have enough left to still be faster with 4 cores.

2) Native or non-native... 2 cores, 4 cores, blah... In the end it comes down to only a few things, such as:
- Price
- Performance
- Stability
- Availability
- Compatibility

In other words: bang for the buck.
I mean, say that AMD's next CPU would be a single-core rather than a quadcore, but it'd still be faster than any other CPU (and just as affordable)... Do you think people will still insist on native quadcore? Ofcourse not. Ultimately such details don't matter at all, as long as the performance is there.

3) A single FX processor has a TDP of 125w. Won't two of such CPUs on one board give big problems PSU-wise? I've seen my share of PSU-related problems with Pentium systems and SLI/CrossFire setups (sometimes even without).
I personally think AMD will have trouble making this platform stable, at an acceptable cost.

4) 4x4 should be introduced in about 2 weeks... But where is it? Intel benchmarks have been available for a few months now, and they look favourable. Why are there no 4x4 benchmarks to be found?
I think that 4x4 is either not ready yet, or it is ready but AMD knows the benchmarks aren't that impressive, so they try to keep it a secret until launch.

5) The shoe seems to be on the other foot now. Looking at Quadfather, it's AMD having higher TDP, having less elegant solutions, requiring higher clockspeed, yielding lower IPC, higher prices etc...
Funny how quickly the rules of the game change.

 

[Scali2]

and if you ask me, sharing L1 and L2 between all cores is dumb beyond belief. cache coherancy and thrashing ftl. if you're gonna draw the line between native and non-native as 4 "cores" that share the same cache, so be it. just be aware that multithreading performance will lack, as shown with conroe, there is a relatively large drop in performance when running two tasks at once vs a single task, when compared to K8.

Got any benchmarks to back that up?
With the last routine I optimized for multithreading, I found that the Core2 Duo gained about 20% performance while the Athlon64 would be anywhere from 0-5%.
And with multitasking I don't see a disadvantage, since a single cache still has its own associativity. It will probably be an advantage, since the associativity will effectively allocate the cache to the different cores on-demand. If one thread doesn't need more than 1 mb cache, the other thread automatically has 3 mb at its disposal.

L1-cache is not shared on Core2 by the way, only L2 is.
That makes sense, really, since as far as the cores are concerned, L2 is the 'memory'.
L1 is too small and basic to keep track of anything, but L2 is where you decide when to writeback to memory, and when to refresh a value that may have been overwritten elsewhere.
With multiple cores you need to keep L2 in sync anyway (L1 will basically automatically be synced as a result of a synced L2-cache).
If you share the L2-cache, you avoid the sync-problem altogether. If you don't, you'll either have to go through memory, or through an external bus. Both solutions are less efficient, since it requires sending data from one core to the other, which isn't used either for input or output of the actual running routine.

 

[savantu]

Got any benchmarks to back that up?
With the last routine I optimized for multithreading, I found that the Core2 Duo gained about 20% performance while the Athlon64 would be anywhere from 0-5%.
And with multitasking I don't see a disadvantage, since a single cache still has its own associativity. It will probably be an advantage, since the associativity will effectively allocate the cache to the different cores on-demand. If one thread doesn't need more than 1 mb cache, the other thread automatically has 3 mb at its disposal.

L1-cache is not shared on Core2 by the way, only L2 is.
That makes sense, really, since as far as the cores are concerned, L2 is the 'memory'.
L1 is too small and basic to keep track of anything, but L2 is where you decide when to writeback to memory, and when to refresh a value that may have been overwritten elsewhere.
With multiple cores you need to keep L2 in sync anyway (L1 will basically automatically be synced as a result of a synced L2-cache).
If you share the L2-cache, you avoid the sync-problem altogether. If you don't, you'll either have to go through memory, or through an external bus. Both solutions are less efficient, since it requires sending data from one core to the other, which isn't used either for input or output of the actual running routine.

Well said , not to mention how difficult is to make a shared cache that actually performs well.

 

[Donnie27]

if someone else tells u otherwise they are wrong. Kentsfield is not native quad. It is quad but not natively. Native Dualcore refers to two cores in a single die. Native Quadcore refers to four cores on a single die. That simple end of story.

Except that's four Full Processors, NOT just Cores. Intel's is Two Full Processors, get it?

 

[Donnie27]

There is no way in hell that I would choose FX-7x over Kentsfield. I wouldn't even compare them.
If Intel wanted to go the same gimmick route, we would have 8 cores over two sockets.
This is the part where Kentsfield has its merits.

Native 4 cores on one die will only happen on the 45nm process, which will be late next year.

Again, if I was Quad, I'd go with two Woodys for now.

Maybe Intel and AMD both will have True Native Quad core by then. Maybe we could look back on threads like this THEY see where they tried to sucker us?

To the others who think AMD's is Native, that's fine. I just don't.

 

[Donnie27]

Got any benchmarks to back that up?
With the last routine I optimized for multithreading, I found that the Core2 Duo gained about 20% performance while the Athlon64 would be anywhere from 0-5%.
And with multitasking I don't see a disadvantage, since a single cache still has its own associativity. It will probably be an advantage, since the associativity will effectively allocate the cache to the different cores on-demand. If one thread doesn't need more than 1 mb cache, the other thread automatically has 3 mb at its disposal.

L1-cache is not shared on Core2 by the way, only L2 is.
That makes sense, really, since as far as the cores are concerned, L2 is the 'memory'.
L1 is too small and basic to keep track of anything, but L2 is where you decide when to writeback to memory, and when to refresh a value that may have been overwritten elsewhere.
With multiple cores you need to keep L2 in sync anyway (L1 will basically automatically be synced as a result of a synced L2-cache).
If you share the L2-cache, you avoid the sync-problem altogether. If you don't, you'll either have to go through memory, or through an external bus. Both solutions are less efficient, since it requires sending data from one core to the other, which isn't used either for input or output of the actual running routine.

I second the well said comment made earlier.

 

[Poncho]

Native Dualcore refers to two cores in a single die.

Since you seem so sure you have evidence to back up this claim right? Can you point me to a technical document, industry standard, anything that makes this claim that "native" is a certain # of cores on one die. I don't want to see marketing BS from AMD, Inq, etc.... hard evidence to back this up.

 

[Poncho]

Well said , not to mention how difficult is to make a shared cache that actually performs well.

this is where I think AMD will have a hard time. It's well known that Intel is the shit when it comes to cache performance. Will the high latency L3, probably poorly designed, hold AMDs CPU back a bit? Just a theory.... but I think that it will.

 

[Scali2]

Actually, it only just dawned on me that the Athlon is caching the same stuff TWICE in my routine.
I assume each core has its own copy of the data I'm constantly reading... alternatively each core has to visit the cache of the other core to read the data... I don't think it will work that way, that would probably be too slow.
I'll have to look into that.

But if I'm right, then the arrays of data that I share between cores, to divide the workload, will probably be cached in both cores.
In the worst case you''ll effectively halve the cachesize! Where my Core2 can cache 4 mb of data for both cores, a non-shared version would cache the same 2 mb in both cores.
Another reason to prefer shared cache over separate caches.

 

[khuyakuya]

So PD 8xx Smithfield is a native dual core ? Interesting...

not a good implementation of native dualcore but yes native dualcore. native dualcore doesnt mean it was designed ground up to be dualcore, it simply means it contains two cores on one die. your sarcasm is unneeded.

 

[khuyakuya]

But why are you guys acting like that's so good? K8L is four cores on a die, but they are glued together with some L3 cache (didn't AMD fans once refer to cache as a "gimmick" back in the P4 days?). If that's all it takes to be native, maybe we don't want native. Maybe Intel's FSB connection technique is *gasp* better? Maybe "native" != performance?!?

lol i never said native is better than non native why are you grouping me in with these people? im simply stating what native means.

 

[khuyakuya]

Since you seem so sure you have evidence to back up this claim right? Can you point me to a technical document, industry standard, anything that makes this claim that "native" is a certain # of cores on one die. I don't want to see marketing BS from AMD, Inq, etc.... hard evidence to back this up.

well if ur disputing this definition of native in that context, you're basically saying native dualcore is a redundant way of simply saying dualcore.

 

[Poncho]

well if ur disputing this definition of native in that context, you're basically saying native dualcore is a redundant way of simply saying dualcore.

Pretty much... but you haven't answered my question. People like to throw around native as a term that has some sort of meaning and set of guidelines.... I would like to know what you base this opinion on. Or did you just pick that term out of some marketing fluff and decide to run with it? I'm guessing that you, and everybody else who uses it, did. So if you didn't... please prove me wrong.

 

[khuyakuya]

Pretty much... but you haven't answered my question. People like to throw around native as a term that has some sort of meaning and set of guidelines.... I would like to know what you base this opinion on. Or did you just pick that term out of some marketing fluff and decide to run with it? I'm guessing that you, and everybody else who uses it, did. So if you didn't... please prove me wrong.

i didnt know that u didnt understand the definition of native. ill elaborate for you. for example. back in the geforce6800 series some cards "natively" supported pcie meaning they were built to work for pcie "natively" without an agp to pcie bridge. Natively basically means what the chip originally was built to be. In the case of a single die quad core, its natively quadcore because the die was made to be quadcore. In the case of non native quadcore with two or four dies, each die was built to be single/dual core, and they are connected to be quadcore. i dont see why you dispute this so much. I mean the word native has been around for a long time and this use of native is the same use its had for centuries.
A car example would be your car natively supports DC voltage. You need an inverter if you want to use a device that runs on AC. AC is not natively supported by your car..

 

[Donnie27]

Pretty much... but you haven't answered my question. People like to throw around native as a term that has some sort of meaning and set of guidelines.... I would like to know what you base this opinion on. Or did you just pick that term out of some marketing fluff and decide to run with it? I'm guessing that you, and everybody else who uses it, did. So if you didn't... please prove me wrong.

See, that's what Happens when something folks believe, in this case AMD, lies and folks refuse to except it. That's why I asked the question that started the thread.

It is kind of Shaky that there are NO real tests or even anyone at Xtremesystems.org running them. I must admit, I don't visit there much anymore.

 

[Donnie27]

lol i never said native is better than non native why are you grouping me in with these people? im simply stating what native means.

You didn't but AMD did!

 

[InorganicMatter]

well if ur disputing this definition of native in that context, you're basically saying native dualcore is a redundant way of simply saying dualcore.

Who defines native? Right now, half the people in this thread are saying AMD's definition of "native" is the correct one, and so anything Intel has is wrong because it's not what AMD says is native. Get it? That's called circular logic. It doesn't work.

 

[Donnie27]

not a good implementation of native dualcore but yes native dualcore. native dualcore doesnt mean it was designed ground up to be dualcore, it simply means it contains two cores on one die. your sarcasm is unneeded.

No! AMD said Athlon was built from the ground up to be multicore. They even bragged about it when X2 launched. C 2 D was built from the Ground up to be Dual Core. One of the reasons there are no C 2 Solos on sale yet.

What I said about 4 X 4 and Licenses?
Proof.

http://multicore.amd.com/en/Technology/SoftwareLicensing/

AMD is providing industry-thought leadership by recommending software developers license their software by socket and schedule threads by available cores.

This recommendation mirrors the software-licensing model that the industry has established for simultaneous multi-threaded (SMT) processors and will allow existing x86 software to run on multi-core processors without having to make changes.

Microsoft has announced its decision to follow AMD's recommendations. Microsoft server software, which is currently licensed by the number of processors in the server, will continue to be licensed in that model for server hardware that contains dual-core and multi-core processors. Microsoft operating systems and applications will install and run on multi-core systems just as they do on current single-core systems.

AMD applauds Microsoft's decision to license server software by processor, not by core.

Source AMD

Though AMD loves to embellish their part, it was the whole Industry who asked for this, sheesh!

Now that's what Intel did, put Two Native Dual Core Processors on one Package/Socket so Microsoft licenses it accordingly. 4 X 4 falls under the same umbrella as any other Opteron systems with two sockets=P No matter if 8 cores or processors sits on One package, it's counted as one. Quad Father is a poor name for that system.

 

[Poncho]

i didnt know that u didnt understand the definition of native.

Oh I understand the definition of native, what I am asking for (you didn't provide it BTW) is something that shows an industry standard that would make Kentsfield "non native" quadcore. You giving me your opinion on the subject does nothing for me. I'm asking you to provide me with a document that says what native is or isn't and how that relates to CPU design.

Natively basically means what the chip originally was built to be. In the case of a single die quad core, its natively quadcore because the die was made to be quadcore. In the case of non native quadcore with two or four dies, each die was built to be single/dual core, and they are connected to be quadcore.

Oh... so if Intel say designed a dual core die but had intended it to be quad core with the addition and connection of another dual core die that would be native then right? I mean they designed a dual core die with making it quad core in mind. Let's assume that for a second.... do you really think that Intel designed dual core WITH OUT quad core in mind? I mean hell... they've produced an 80 core wafer when we haven't even seen a quad core on the market. I'm thinking they think ahead on these things just a tad bit. So yea... your argument holds no water if this is what you base native on.

 

[InorganicMatter]

Here's what I've gathered so far:

"Quad-core is only native if they are on one die. AMD said this so it must be true. Because this is the case, that's why K8L is native, because AMD said so. Never mind that there are more efficient and cheaper ways to do quad-core."

 

[khuyakuya]

Who defines native? Right now, half the people in this thread are saying AMD's definition of "native" is the correct one, and so anything Intel has is wrong because it's not what AMD says is native. Get it? That's called circular logic. It doesn't work.

i didnt even know either of them defined native. this whole arguement has left me in the dark. when i say native its what i define it as now i get why so many people are arguing and using my posts, i didnt know nor do i care what amd nor intel defines as native. what native is is common sense or so i thought

 

[khuyakuya]

Here's what I've gathered so far:

"Quad-core is only native if they are on one die. AMD said this so it must be true. Because this is the case, that's why K8L is native, because AMD said so. Never mind that there are more efficient and cheaper ways to do quad-core."

jesus christ native is not a question of performance. native isnt necessarily better or worse than non native.and it has nothing to do with amd. its common sense. native simply means they are on one die. x2's and opterons 165-180 and so forth are native dual core. intel coreduos and core2duos are native. why is this even an argument?

 

[khuyakuya]

Oh I understand the definition of native, what I am asking for (you didn't provide it BTW) is something that shows an industry standard that would make Kentsfield "non native" quadcore. You giving me your opinion on the subject does nothing for me. I'm asking you to provide me with a document that says what native is or isn't and how that relates to CPU design.



Oh... so if Intel say designed a dual core die but had intended it to be quad core with the addition and connection of another dual core die that would be native then right? I mean they designed a dual core die with making it quad core in mind. Let's assume that for a second.... do you really think that Intel designed dual core WITH OUT quad core in mind? I mean hell... they've produced an 80 core wafer when we haven't even seen a quad core on the market. I'm thinking they think ahead on these things just a tad bit. So yea... your argument holds no water if this is what you base native on.

incorrect. that individual die was NOT intended to be quad on its own. if it requires TWO dies to make it quad, its not native.

 

[InorganicMatter]

native simply means they are on one die.

SAYS AMD!
Who ever said they are right?

You just proved my point. I rest my case.

 

[khuyakuya]

Oh I understand the definition of native, what I am asking for (you didn't provide it BTW) is something that shows an industry standard that would make Kentsfield "non native" quadcore. You giving me your opinion on the subject does nothing for me. I'm asking you to provide me with a document that says what native is or isn't and how that relates to CPU design.



Oh... so if Intel say designed a dual core die but had intended it to be quad core with the addition and connection of another dual core die that would be native then right? I mean they designed a dual core die with making it quad core in mind. Let's assume that for a second.... do you really think that Intel designed dual core WITH OUT quad core in mind? I mean hell... they've produced an 80 core wafer when we haven't even seen a quad core on the market. I'm thinking they think ahead on these things just a tad bit. So yea... your argument holds no water if this is what you base native on.

you're not stupid you know there is no such thing as a universal definition for what native means just as in different parts of the US words have different meanings. how can u give u a universal definition for a word when no word has a universal definition. you arguing semantics and the what not is rediculous.

 

[khuyakuya]

SAYS AMD!
Who ever said they are right?

You just proved my point. I rest my case.

I didnt know AMD said that til five minutes ago when someone posted it. And it was my understanding that BOTH AMD AND INTEL said native referred to them being on one die. Every hardware site I've read also refers to native as being on one die.

 

[khuyakuya]

i dont even know how this arguement started and i didnt even know at first that amd and intel differed in what they though of native just as the only time ive seen native used was by hardware sites. we are so fucking childish we are arguing over the fucking definition of a SINGLE WORD. wtf people drop it jesus h. christ man its a word.

 

[Donnie27]

I didnt know AMD said that til five minutes ago when someone posted it. And it was my understanding that BOTH AMD AND INTEL said native referred to them being on one die. Every hardware site I've read also refers to native as being on one die.

Have you seen a Smithfield Die X-Ray? Now that's two processors on the same die!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/04/05/the_pentium_d/page3.html

Two Complete processors on one Die, not just on the same Package. Even Intel admitted that it was not native and rushed. C2D is native and had provisions to connect to other C2Ds right from the start, so when it does connect, its native That means that nothing was added or taken way to make it that way. Sort of like a Native German Speaker speaking German. That's NOT the case with Smithfield.

Now Intel could go back and add a Direct Connection, IMC/MCM and a L3 between these two Prescott's and they're still two Prescotts and not native DC LOL! Doesn't matter if they're on the same die or not!

AMD is using 4 complete Processors, each with their Die within a Die connected via HTT to a Direct Connect system, to an L3. Because each is different, doesn't mean one is Native and the other is not. Please don't fall for the Hype. Both are native or Both are NOT!


Again, If I'm someone at AMD, I'm talking about Core Improvements made, NOT this Phony Crap-O-La! This has a chance to be a positive for Intel and not Help AMD much at all. Sure, many well meaning (not just Fanb0y$) will fall for it. But then folks are going to say stuff like I said before. If AMD doesn't crush Intel's Quick Fix, Hack, or Rush Job, AMD looks even worse!

 

[Donnie27]

i dont even know how this arguement started and i didnt even know at first that amd and intel differed in what they though of native just as the only time ive seen native used was by hardware sites. we are so fucking childish we are arguing over the fucking definition of a SINGLE WORD. wtf people drop it jesus h. christ man its a word.

Native Quad Core?

That's how the thread started! If it does't matter please explain that to Webber, Ruiz and etc......

 

[Donnie27]

SAYS AMD!
Who ever said they are right?

You just proved my point. I rest my case.

Hehehehe!

 

[Poncho]

incorrect. that individual die was NOT intended to be quad on its own. if it requires TWO dies to make it quad, its not native.

Your argument for what is native is if a product was designed with the intention of becoming something, ie a company makes a product with a plan for that product. Based on your opinion if a company designs a core with the intention of it being quad core... then it's native. Well guess what.... Intel designed their 2 core per die processor to become quad core. They didn't just come up with that out of the blue AFTER their dual core was released... it was POR from day one, just like the 80 core wafer. They think ahead and maybe they decided that with the current tech that using 2 dual core dies would be better all the way around. Maybe they thought that it would allow them to bin the parts more effectively.... thus reducing costs. Maybe they figured that the performance difference was negligible. Who knows... but the fact is that dual core was designed with multi core in mind. Again... native/non-native is just a counterargument by a company that is bringing up the rear.

 

[Donnie27]

Your argument for what is native is if a product was designed with the intention of becoming something, ie a company makes a product with a plan for that product. Based on your opinion if a company designs a core with the intention of it being quad core... then it's native. Well guess what.... Intel designed their 2 core per die processor to become quad core. They didn't just come up with that out of the blue AFTER their dual core was released... it was POR from day one, just like the 80 core wafer. They think ahead and maybe they decided that with the current tech that using 2 dual core dies would be better all the way around. Maybe they thought that it would allow them to bin the parts more effectively.... thus reducing costs. Maybe they figured that the performance difference was negligible. Who knows... but the fact is that dual core was designed with multi core in mind. Again... native/non-native is just a counterargument by a company that is bringing up the rear.

The sad part is every time AMD does it, AMD believers fall for it. Every time Intel has something worth exploring, there's AMD to try and downplay it. Like Teflon, nothing seems to stick to them also. Look at all of the negative stuff they said about MMX, SSE and etc.. only to use it later. Hell, even Kyle showed how bad the are when they called Hyperthreading a Gimmick LOL!

Here's a nice little time. Sure there are more or better ones but this list is almost right to the point.

Princton.

Yup, Intel is known to pull the same stunt! But lately it seems that they've learned from their BS marketing and are not doing it as much.

http://www.techspot.com/review/27-intel-core2-extreme-qx6700-quad/page1.html

Now that the Kentsfield architecture is here and we know what it has to offer, we must wait and see what AMD answers with. This will determine how quick Kentsfield-based processors become more affordable and which platform users will decide to go with. As of now, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 looks to be the most powerful processor on the market for use with power hungry Windows apps. When it comes to gaming, the Core 2 Duo E6700 is a much better choice, or for value the E6600 or even the E6300.

I disagree with several observations made during the review. 1st, there are no looks to it, it IS the most powerful PROCESSOR, not two processors or etc..... Hell even if AMD stuck two FX-62's on the same package in the same fashion they'd still get spanked.

 

[Donnie27]

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIxMywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

] Understandably you will hear many critics complain about how this solution is not a "true" quad-core design, or they will sound off and bash it for not being as "elegant" as what the competition is bringing to market. And they may be right, but it hardly changes the facts. The fact of the matter is that it is truly a quad-core processor whether or not it is a quad-core die. The fact of the matter is that Intel's front side bus design might be a bit long in the tooth, but there is no doubt that we are seeing tremendous performance channeled through it. To me, at the end of the day, it is all about the application performance we can squeeze out of it and how hot it gets along the way. Yes, real performance per watt is our measure.

Nailed that one,

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

AMD is using 4 complete Processors, each with their Die within a Die connected via HTT to a Direct Connect system, to an L3. Because each is different, doesn't mean one is Native and the other is not. Please don't fall for the Hype. Both are native or Both are NOT!

last i checked, the htt is on the crossbar for external comunication, not internal

in my mind, smithfield is native dual core. two cpus on one die. it's a very clearcut definition, no reason to make things more difficult than it has to be.

 

[GreyMatterTripp]

last i checked, the htt is on the crossbar for external comunication, not internal

in my mind, smithfield is native dual core. two cpus on one die. it's a very clearcut definition, no reason to make things more difficult than it has to be.

But of course didn't you know these two are the masters of confrontation. They'll argue your shade of green isn't green ENOUGH, Or that up is down or left is right. They'll probably argue off of nothing at all, and its almost infectious, you start arguing with them about nothing. Its alot like a politician speaking, they use alot of language and communicate very little. And as I've been observing pancho is an INTEL EMPLOYEE so anything he says has an implicit BIAS. LOL. observe his posts, they are so slanted its comical.

War is peace, Ignorance is knowledge, Slavery is Freedom. You gotta love these guys.