From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NPOV dispute - Performance claims[edit]

Neutral point of view is disrupted in last paragraph of this section. Current article use reference which explain this technology. But current statements are opposite of findings in the reference because of strong bias and erroneous understanding. I've written about errors in section above after unsuccessful attempt to resolve the issue by editing article (my edits were reverted numerous times). Second reference in this paragraph is not available any more but it's possible to access it by Internet Archive here. Current article state it's "performance analysis" while it's small section which [Typo. I meant with. — Vivil 13:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)] one small erroneous argument based on outdated misunderstanding of this technology which assume that each core work with half speed with HT turned ON. Please use {{reply to}} Vivil 🗪 13:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

How do you conclude on my misunderstanding "that each core work with half speed with HT turned ON"? That's nonsense. Also, you've mentioned additional sources more than once, but hand-waving doesn't cut it: show me the links, please, I want to read them. By the way, the second reference is perfectly accessible. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we have a language barrier here. I understand this isn't your native language so I'll explain in detail; don't worry.
I wrote that this is the misunderstanding of the technology in the second reference. I didn't write this is your misunderstanding (unless you're the author of that article).
This is what that article is saying near the end of section.
I said why I won't post more references. But for a start I can show you this.
I've checked different browsers. It's not working for me in Chrome but it works in Firefox. Why would this website block Chrome from access? Hmmm.. Please use {{reply to}} Vivil 🗪 14:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you weren't trying to put me down, as my knowledge of the English language is good enough to understand very well everything you write. However, please don't get me wrong, but your style of writing could be slightly better and less mangled, with fewer grammar mistakes; for example, you should have written one of the sentences above as "currently, the article uses a reference which explains this technology", or "current version of the article uses references which explain this technology" – note my corrections in bold. So much about the language barrier.
I had a look at (which I also added as a reference), and that source benchmarks hyper-threading on a very high level, without going into latency vs. throughput. As the Hyper-threading § Performance claims section describes, latency increases "in case the execution of threads does not result in significant overall throughput gains"; thus, it clearly states that throughput gains are a reality. In other words, and if you read it carefully enough, that description never ruled out the possibility for hyper-threading to result in higher throughput.
By the way, I'm not the author of the article, and I can't know why there are issues with certain web browsers. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't my intent. You're taking this too personally.
Just a reminder: WP:OWN.
This is going nowhere. I'll wait for other editors to take a part. Please use {{reply to}} Vivil 🗪 13:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If someone says that my English is bad and I can't understand something, while that isn't true, of course I'll take that personally. Just as another reminder, this time for you: WP:COMPETENCE. However, I agree that we need input from more editors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Intel's vs. Intel's[edit]

Hello, Vivil! Regarding this edit and earlier changes between [[Intel]]'s and [[Intel|Intel's]], please see a related discussion taking place at User talk:Basilicofresco § Blocked Bot for 12 hours for changing a style issue in articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

After reading few discussion I now agree that "Intel's" is correct version because it's consistent with underlining of plural forms. For example [[Dog]]s is showing Dogs. Please use {{reply to}} Vivil 🗪 13:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for going through those rather lengthy discussions. :) Yeah, although the [[Article|Article's]] form requires more Wiki code, I do agree that it is more consistent because it follows the style of link coloring automatically applied to [[Article]]s, for example. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)