Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD may have 4 instruction decoders up its sleeve.

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Macros
  • AMD
  • Windows XP
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 14, 2006 5:00:39 PM

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32424

Hmm sounds good will it give AMD a fighting chance? K8L still can't fuse macro opps(or is it micro opps?) And they have more thermal output. I just want a nice competitor to Conroe, I don't want an Athlon XP vs. Pentium 4 defeat again.
I want AMD to do good(support the little guy) and Intel to do good(stocks). Wonder what wish I'll get.

More about : amd instruction decoders sleeve

June 14, 2006 7:03:39 PM

Quote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32424

Hmm sounds good will it give AMD a fighting chance? K8L still can't fuse macro opps(or is it micro opps?) And they have more thermal output. I just want a nice competitor to Conroe, I don't want an Athlon XP vs. Pentium 4 defeat again.
I want AMD to do good(support the little guy) and Intel to do good(stocks). Wonder what wish I'll get.


Maybe not but they are doublign the width of SSE, adding OoO buffers, increasing the fetch to 32KB, adding new 64bit registers and adding siGe to pump clock speed or power efficiency. Intel better hope it oesn't come out.

The design sounds like 40% better perf at dual core (can't compare quad)
June 14, 2006 7:40:49 PM

Quote:

The design sounds like 40% better perf at dual core (can't compare quad)



Just a second, let me see if I got this straight. If people benchmark Intel machines before release showing a 40% performance increase (over the Pentium D), they can't be right. They're downright wrong. But if AMD even talks about releasing an improved uArch, it's a sudden 40% performance increase. :roll:
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
June 14, 2006 7:49:06 PM

Of course! You didn't really think Intel could come up with something good now did you?

Well I think thats my quota of sarcasm for the week.
June 14, 2006 7:52:31 PM

Well, AMD's policy is to under-promise and over-deliver. Intel is quite the contrary. Remember when they were talking about how they'd have 10 GHz CPUs?
June 14, 2006 8:02:33 PM

AMD Has Been Using 4 Instruction Decoders Since The Introduction Of The AMD K5 Back In 1996, What They Should Due Is Double The The L1 And L2 Caches, Go To .65nm w/SOI, Go To Hypertransport 2.0 (2x32-Bit Lanes Enstead Of 2x16-Bit Lanes), And Design There Own Version Of Memory Disambiguation (I Think Thats How They Spell It) And There Own Version Of Micro-Opps Fusion.

P.S They Do However Plan On Adding L3s To There High End FXs And Opterons
June 14, 2006 8:13:39 PM

Quote:

The design sounds like 40% better perf at dual core (can't compare quad)



Just a second, let me see if I got this straight. If people benchmark Intel machines before release showing a 40% performance increase (over the Pentium D), they can't be right. They're downright wrong. But if AMD even talks about releasing an improved uArch, it's a sudden 40% performance increase. :roll:


That's not true. When I saw the specs for Conroe I knew it would offer 40% above P4. Maybe not 40% above K8.
June 14, 2006 9:28:11 PM

Intel's Tri-Gate Transistor to boost processor's performance/watt!!!



Quote:
Researchers at Intel have found a better way to insulate circuits, enabling them to save energy as they pack more transistors onto each processor.

Intel could start building chips with these new "tri-gate transistors" by 2010, enabling either a 45 percent increase in speed or a 35 percent reduction in total power used, compared to the company’s current 65-nanometer process transistors, said Mike Mayberry, director of components research and vice president of Intel’s Technology and Manufacturing Group.

The advance could be a powerful sales tool, since power efficiency is a crucial marketing metric for chips in PCs ranging from powerful servers to mobile laptops and handheld PDAs.

Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has purchased billboard ads that claim its Opteron chip will reduce electricity costs compared to Intel’s Xeon chips. And Sun Microsystems frequently taunts competitors Hewlett-Packard and IBM for using fans to cool their servers, instead of using more efficient chips like Sun’s UltraSPARC T1.

Intel’s new technology would also extend the reach of Moore’s Law, the prediction made 40 years ago by Intel cofounder Gordon Moore that the number of transistors on a chip would double about every two years.

Engineers have recently predicted that trend would soon end, because electricity tends to leak out of tiny wires as chip geometry shrinks below 90 nanometers.

One solution is to build chips with multiple cores that run at slower speeds, since chips leak more electricity and run less efficiently as they run faster than 2GHz. Chip makers from Intel to AMD and Sun have all followed this path.

Another answer could be carbon nanotubes, according to scientists at IBM, who said in March they had built an electronic integrated circuit by combining conventional silicon technology with a carbon nanotube molecule.

But Intel says its tri-gate solution is the best.

"Compared to carbon nanotubes, it is far easier to build," Mayberry said. "The problem with carbon nanotubes is that no one knows how to put them in a particular spot except by moving them one at a time. Even our smallest chips have millions of transistors, so that is an insurmountable challenge."

A tri-gate transistor is a component in the standard complementary metal oxide semiconductor design, but acts as a better "traffic cop" to control the flow of electrons, surrounding each wire on three sides instead of just one.

"It’s better to wrap the gate around, just like it’s easier to block a garden hose by squeezing on all sides than just holding your thumb on one side," he said.

The technology is still on the drawing board, but Intel designers will be able to quickly apply it to new chips someday because they can use existing equipment in the fabrication plants.

"This will be an option for chips somewhere beyond 45 nm—in the 32 or 22 nm mode—so that gives us confidence we can continue scaling Moore’s Law into the next decade," said Mayberry.

Intel has said it will be making more chips with 65-nanometer geometry than with 90 nanometers by the third quarter of 2006, and will move to 45 nanometers in 2007 and 32 nanometers by 2009.




too fast to process a data.. hahahaha... o_O
June 14, 2006 10:53:40 PM

Wow, one whole example from years ago!
June 14, 2006 11:15:53 PM

Quote:
Wow, one whole example from years ago!


*COUGH* Itanium *COUGH*
June 14, 2006 11:19:42 PM

Another example from *gasp* years ago!
June 14, 2006 11:23:10 PM

Action_Man, bring back Steve Austin. The sarcastic look on his face fit your personality so well :!:
June 14, 2006 11:28:43 PM

Or just bring back some intelligent conversation. It's been seriously lacking lately. BTW Intel is still trying to get itanium out there to this day :roll:
June 14, 2006 11:31:06 PM

Aww, no-one seems to like Trex. :cry: 
June 14, 2006 11:33:28 PM

Quote:
BTW Intel is still trying to get itanium out there to this day


Huh?

Well lets look at their two latest and biggest projects. The Pentium M and Core 2. Neither have overpromised and underdelivered. Just the opposite it would seem.
June 14, 2006 11:37:23 PM

Quote:
BTW Intel is still trying to get itanium out there to this day


Huh?

Well lets look at their two latest and biggest projects. The Pentium M and Core 2. Neither have overpromised and underdelivered. Just the opposite it would seem.

I'm sry but mixing my quote with someone elses opionion doesnt work for me. What does this have to do with 4 complex decoder's on Rev G and K8L again?
June 14, 2006 11:39:40 PM

What do any of these posts have to do with 4 complex decoder's on Rev G and K8L? Nothing.
June 14, 2006 11:48:23 PM

Quote:
What do any of these posts have to do with 4 complex decoder's on Rev G and K8L? Nothing.


Exactly. Now let's end this in peace and let discussion commence. You cant group every AMD fan into this "horde" catogory you've created and I get offended whenever you treat me as such. I will not reply to any further nonsense so say whatever you may to get your last word in AM as I know you'll just be itchin to make me look like a fool one way or another.
June 14, 2006 11:55:20 PM

Quote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32424

Hmm sounds good will it give AMD a fighting chance? K8L still can't fuse macro opps(or is it micro opps?) And they have more thermal output. I just want a nice competitor to Conroe, I don't want an Athlon XP vs. Pentium 4 defeat again.
I want AMD to do good(support the little guy) and Intel to do good(stocks). Wonder what wish I'll get.


I believe Rev G with some IPC enhancements increased clockspeeds will put AMD within striking distance of Conroe. I dont think we'll see another major single threaded performance boost until K10 and I'm not entirely sure where Intel is headed other than unifying their socket's with CSI and adding more cores + getting smaller. If nothing else they will put even more cache on a conroe-ish type architecture
June 15, 2006 12:07:12 AM

Wow, didn't see that one coming.

Quote:
You cant group every AMD fan into this "horde" catogory you've created


I didn't create it and I've done no such thing.

Quote:
I get offended whenever you treat me as such.


I never have.

Quote:
I will not reply to any further nonsense so say whatever you may to get your last word in AM as I know you'll just be itchin to make me look like a fool one way or another.


See now thats totally unnecessary and I'm very dissappointed to hear that from you.
June 15, 2006 12:19:04 AM

Quote:
Wow, didn't see that one coming.

You cant group every AMD fan into this "horde" catogory you've created


I didn't create it and I've done no such thing.

Quote:
I get offended whenever you treat me as such.


I never have.

Quote:
I will not reply to any further nonsense so say whatever you may to get your last word in AM as I know you'll just be itchin to make me look like a fool one way or another.


See now thats totally unnecessary and I'm very dissappointed to hear that from you.

Word.
June 15, 2006 12:32:08 AM

Quote:
Wow, didn't see that one coming.

You cant group every AMD fan into this "horde" catogory you've created


I didn't create it and I've done no such thing.

Quote:
I get offended whenever you treat me as such.


I never have.

Quote:
I will not reply to any further nonsense so say whatever you may to get your last word in AM as I know you'll just be itchin to make me look like a fool one way or another.


See now thats totally unnecessary and I'm very dissappointed to hear that from you.

Word.
*sigh* I've always hated being the youngon in the conversation because no matter how hard I try, I cant beat lvl minded people at that game because i'm only starting to learn the mindgames of adulthood and get beat with experience every time.
June 15, 2006 1:48:30 AM

Quote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32424

(...) K8L still can't fuse macro opps(or is it micro opps?)


Well, it's both (in Intel's Core uArch); not sure about a floorplan uArch (damn word!); anyway, you could have mentioned the picture the Inq. links to... I've posted it somewhere else and I'll re-post it here (maybe the moods change...):



It's one [supposed] core of the [supposed] K8L Rev H quad-core, seen through Galileo's [supposed] broken last glasses...

Quote:
And they have more thermal output.


Sorry?!


Cheers!
June 15, 2006 3:20:31 AM

Quote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32424

Hmm sounds good will it give AMD a fighting chance? K8L still can't fuse macro opps(or is it micro opps?) And they have more thermal output. I just want a nice competitor to Conroe, I don't want an Athlon XP vs. Pentium 4 defeat again.
I want AMD to do good(support the little guy) and Intel to do good(stocks). Wonder what wish I'll get.


I believe Rev G with some IPC enhancements increased clockspeeds will put AMD within striking distance of Conroe. I dont think we'll see another major single threaded performance boost until K10 and I'm not entirely sure where Intel is headed other than unifying their socket's with CSI and adding more cores + getting smaller. If nothing else they will put even more cache on a conroe-ish type architecture


33% more decoding potential will enable AMD to more than overcome Core 2. Even adding L3 in place of 512 of L2 may increase AM2 by another 5-10%. By the time Intel intros CSI, HTX will be everywhere.

I'm sure AMD has learned enough about x64 to make a horse race of it no matter what Intel does. Next year the new buzzword will be Winx64.
June 15, 2006 7:05:42 AM

Quote:
Now let's end this in peace and let discussion commence. You cant group every AMD fan into this "horde" catogory you've created and I get offended whenever you treat me as such. I will not reply to any further nonsense so say whatever you may to get your last word in AM as I know you'll just be itchin to make me look like a fool one way or another.


Hey, K8MAN I am dissapointed to read this from you.
I think you are wrong about AM trying to make you a fool. I like his sence of humor, but sometimes it becomes stupid. But he is not offensive to you.
I think that no one included you in the HORDE. The HORDE with its stereotypic ignorant persons is grouping it self alone.
What is wrong with both of you, low rating your posts each to other?
June 15, 2006 9:20:02 AM

I over-interpreted the lvl of sarcasm in his post earlier today and I realize that I really overeacted myself for nothing. It was just a heat of the moment thing and I hope I can be forgiven. I dont blow my top very often and it was just a stress thing today.
June 15, 2006 2:53:39 PM

Quote:
Action_Man, bring back Steve Austin. The sarcastic look on his face fit your personality so well :!:
Hell yeah! Damn it Action_Man i am going to make you change back to steve austin one way or another. :lol: 

Quote:
Aww, no-one seems to like Trex. :cry: 
Cause t-rex is an animal and your name is Action_Man not Action_Dinosaur.
June 15, 2006 2:55:37 PM

Quote:
Wow, didn't see that one coming.

You cant group every AMD fan into this "horde" catogory you've created


I didn't create it and I've done no such thing.

Quote:
I get offended whenever you treat me as such.


I never have.

Quote:
I will not reply to any further nonsense so say whatever you may to get your last word in AM as I know you'll just be itchin to make me look like a fool one way or another.


See now thats totally unnecessary and I'm very dissappointed to hear that from you.

Word.


Thank you. :D 






June 15, 2006 3:05:01 PM

Quote:
(...) By the time Intel intros CSI, HTX will be everywhere.


Maybe you've got 1/2 a point right, here. Intel, so it seems, doesn't plan to introduce an IMC, anytime soon: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1976374,00.asp?www.dailytech.com
This is a crucial point, in my opinion, despite Intel's representative optimism; it will all depend upon Intel vs AMD performance & scalability, at the server space, and whether an on-die IMC will make the difference. If, as expected, Intel comes ahead with quad-cores & a FSB, it will also give'em time enough to ponder about a more sophisticated (programmable?) IMC approach (they've already shown an integrated on-package [mobile] VRM controller, which is as much interesting...) and CSI. In any case, both Intel's FSB & MCH approaches will certainly call for a replacement, whatever it'll be, in the mid-term. I, for one, just don't believe they'll make the same mistake as they did with insisting on NetBurst.

Quote:
I'm sure AMD has learned enough about x64 to make a horse race of it no matter what Intel does. Next year the new buzzword will be Winx64.


Now, this is a different matter, alltogether: here, whatever AMD comes up with, Intel will be there, I'm quite sure. 64-bit is here to stay, no matter what platform you'll use; and, there's a portuguese saying "You might as well get your horse off the rain". :wink:



Cheers!
June 15, 2006 3:25:14 PM

Quote:
and, there's a portuguese saying "You might as well get your horse off the rain". :wink:

And what does it mean, I am missing the point with the wet horse:) 

BTW, is that you on your avatar?
June 15, 2006 11:24:19 PM

Quote:
AMD will not use micro-op fusion. (...)

Source:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=274...


You state «will not use»; don't know about AMD's next microarchitecture details but, I find it most likely. Although different, they're not that different... and, uops-fusion could still be handy for the next AMD; unless anything really drastic comes up, uops-fusion does help ILP.

Straight from the link you provided:
Quote:
Micro-op fusion does exist in the Athlon.



Cheers!
June 15, 2006 11:42:56 PM

Quote:
and, there's a portuguese saying "You might as well get your horse off the rain". :wink:

And what does it mean, I am missing the point with the wet horse:) 

Sort of giving up (your point) for stronger reasons or... in [even] more colloquial style, if you think you're right...

Quote:
BTW, is that you on your avatar?



Well, yes... and no. Not that young... for a long while. Actually, I call it "my boss". :wink:


Cheers!
June 17, 2006 5:58:50 PM

Quote:

The design sounds like 40% better perf at dual core (can't compare quad)



Just a second, let me see if I got this straight. If people benchmark Intel machines before release showing a 40% performance increase (over the Pentium D), they can't be right. They're downright wrong. But if AMD even talks about releasing an improved uArch, it's a sudden 40% performance increase. :roll:
why not?
The Intel bott kissers started benching a chip 3 months ago which is not due to release till end of july, a 5 months gap. Today we should talk about K8L and 40% better performance than K8, possibly conroe. Becides, its only fair to compare 65nm to 65nm, new arch to new arch. I have seen people compare an overclocked 3.6 ghz conroe to opteron 146 stock speed, and the bott kissers go "wow it's killing amd". Nevermind that one is dual, overclocked, and new arch, vs the other is single core, stock speed, and not new arch. These intel fanboys have developed exterme inferiority complex.
June 17, 2006 6:04:10 PM

Luke... I am your father!
Is that your son?
June 19, 2006 12:16:48 AM

Quote:

The design sounds like 40% better perf at dual core (can't compare quad)



Just a second, let me see if I got this straight. If people benchmark Intel machines before release showing a 40% performance increase (over the Pentium D), they can't be right. They're downright wrong. But if AMD even talks about releasing an improved uArch, it's a sudden 40% performance increase. :roll:
why not?
The Intel bott kissers started benching a chip 3 months ago which is not due to release till end of july, a 5 months gap. Today we should talk about K8L and 40% better performance than K8, possibly conroe. Becides, its only fair to compare 65nm to 65nm, new arch to new arch. I have seen people compare an overclocked 3.6 ghz conroe to opteron 146 stock speed, and the bott kissers go "wow it's killing amd". Nevermind that one is dual, overclocked, and new arch, vs the other is single core, stock speed, and not new arch. These intel fanboys have developed exterme inferiority complex.

Everyone just pretend to see a '*' where the 'u' is :wink:
June 19, 2006 6:00:29 AM

It seems to me the issue is not so much decoders, but rather execution units.

For example the old, belated, now near dead netburst structure could, at least in theory, decode/issue 6 instructions per clock cycle, but the bottle neck was that it could only retire two instructions per cycle.

By contrast, the K8 has 3 complex execution units, while Conroe has 3 complex + 1 simple execution units, allow more instructioins to be actually completed per clock.

The huge advantage Conroe has is that all three of it's SSE units are 128 bits wide versus 2 x 64 bits for the K8 - this is where the bulk of the performance gap seesm to be.

It should be, of course, noted that the number of instructions issued/retired is not quite comparable.

Both AMD and Intel take x86 instructions and break them down into simpler instructions internally. (Intel calls these mico-ops, AMD calls the risc86) - Due to micro-op fusion the Core cpus tend to do more work per instruction, while the K8 had a pretty good advantage on Netburst.
June 19, 2006 6:54:36 AM

Quote:

The design sounds like 40% better perf at dual core (can't compare quad)



Just a second, let me see if I got this straight. If people benchmark Intel machines before release showing a 40% performance increase (over the Pentium D), they can't be right. They're downright wrong. But if AMD even talks about releasing an improved uArch, it's a sudden 40% performance increase. :roll:
why not?
The Intel bott kissers started benching a chip 3 months ago which is not due to release till end of july, a 5 months gap. Today we should talk about K8L and 40% better performance than K8, possibly conroe. Becides, its only fair to compare 65nm to 65nm, new arch to new arch. I have seen people compare an overclocked 3.6 ghz conroe to opteron 146 stock speed, and the bott kissers go "wow it's killing amd". Nevermind that one is dual, overclocked, and new arch, vs the other is single core, stock speed, and not new arch. These intel fanboys have developed exterme inferiority complex.

Oh, so this is a "horde". I see. Someone who can't fathom the difference between a "Benchmark" of an actual chip and a number pulled out of thin air.

You do well to illustrate who has the inferiority complex.
June 21, 2006 12:02:25 AM

Quote:
It seems to me the issue is not so much decoders, but rather execution units.

For example the old, belated, now near dead netburst structure could, at least in theory, decode/issue 6 instructions per clock cycle, but the bottle neck was that it could only retire two instructions per cycle.

By contrast, the K8 has 3 complex execution units, while Conroe has 3 complex + 1 simple execution units, allow more instructioins to be actually completed per clock.

The huge advantage Conroe has is that all three of it's SSE units are 128 bits wide versus 2 x 64 bits for the K8 - this is where the bulk of the performance gap seesm to be.

It should be, of course, noted that the number of instructions issued/retired is not quite comparable.

Both AMD and Intel take x86 instructions and break them down into simpler instructions internally. (Intel calls these mico-ops, AMD calls the risc86) - Due to micro-op fusion the Core cpus tend to do more work per instruction, while the K8 had a pretty good advantage on Netburst.



Wouldnt it be interesting if AMD's 3 complex decoder's suddenly became 6 complex decoder's with the flick of a switch on dual core AM2 :wink:
June 21, 2006 12:11:46 AM

And wouldn't it be good if santa was real too.
June 21, 2006 12:12:49 AM

Quote:
It seems to me the issue is not so much decoders, but rather execution units.

For example the old, belated, now near dead netburst structure could, at least in theory, decode/issue 6 instructions per clock cycle, but the bottle neck was that it could only retire two instructions per cycle.

By contrast, the K8 has 3 complex execution units, while Conroe has 3 complex + 1 simple execution units, allow more instructioins to be actually completed per clock.

The huge advantage Conroe has is that all three of it's SSE units are 128 bits wide versus 2 x 64 bits for the K8 - this is where the bulk of the performance gap seesm to be.

It should be, of course, noted that the number of instructions issued/retired is not quite comparable.

Both AMD and Intel take x86 instructions and break them down into simpler instructions internally. (Intel calls these mico-ops, AMD calls the risc86) - Due to micro-op fusion the Core cpus tend to do more work per instruction, while the K8 had a pretty good advantage on Netburst.


You are confused here.

Conrunt has 3 simple + 1 complex decoder, not the other way. :wink:
June 21, 2006 7:20:54 PM

why do all the threads i've read about intel vs amd end up with squabbling.both amd and intel have their good and bad points,and neither is crap.i think some people start these threads coz they enjoy the flame war.
if no one can talk about amd vs intel without this(and i've seen it on a lot of forums).then why bother.
i have a intel machine at the mo' p.d 930@4ghz,and i have had amd machines before.i am not loyal to neither,coz i never got my loyalty card off amd or intel.
conroe is gonna beat amd for the time being,and even if its not here yet,it is coming,arguing about who is the best aint gonna stop it.and it does'nt change the fact that it will beat the a64,possibly until k8l comes out.
until then i think we will all have to accept that for the moment intel is in the lead.
June 21, 2006 7:57:32 PM

Quote:
Well, AMD's policy is to under-promise and over-deliver. Intel is quite the contrary. Remember when they were talking about how they'd have 10 GHz CPUs?


I beg to differ. I remember when AMD was talking up the thoroughbred B cores. As in the 2800+ XP. I waited and waited and waited.....to my chagrin the only core they did release was the 2700+. Oh and how long did we wait for Athlon 64? I remember them pimping it for a couple of years all the while P4 Northwood was kicking AMD's butt. Northwood was the best of the P4s imho until the release of conroe. But AMD did deliver in the end.....just took longer then promised. So both companies are guilty to some extent or another..
June 21, 2006 8:01:58 PM

True, but to the "horde", AMD can do no wrong, also it is a non-profit compassionate company who devotes its resources to globally combat of poor and needy children, and fights capitalism and corporate mentality...
a c 105 à CPUs
June 21, 2006 10:17:49 PM

I agree- the Pentium M promised nothing- it was a side project in Israel to make a notebook CPU that didn't eat watts like the P4s did and that happened to work very well. The Core 2 is being hailed by Intel as the Second Coming of Jesus, so it better deliver holy hell in a CPU socket to "overdeliver" with the promises Intel has made.
a c 105 à CPUs
June 21, 2006 10:29:53 PM

Quote:
Northwood was the best of the P4s imho until the release of conroe.


The Woody was a decent chip as far as P4s go. They beat the Tualatins, killed the awful Willies, and even though they ran hot, they didn't run *that* hot, at least not in Prescott terms. Oh, and my "Got a Woody?" desktop background on my laptop also gets a lot of comments, and a lot of disappointed looks when I explain what it REALLY means :D 
June 21, 2006 10:53:57 PM

Northwoods run quite cool especially in comparison the athlon xp series.
a c 105 à CPUs
June 21, 2006 11:14:15 PM

Yes, the Northwoods ran cooler than the Athlon XPs of that day. Those AXPs had a bad heat problem and both the AXP and P4 run significantly hotter than the PIII and Athlon Classic/T-Bird that preceded them and also than the P-M/Core and K8 that superceded them.
June 24, 2006 6:26:40 PM

Quote:
Northwoods run quite cool especially in comparison the athlon xp series.


this is very true..I had my P4 up until very recently, I had a 2.8 OC to 3.2 on Watercooling running stable for 2 years ..I also had both series at the same time, and the P4 kicked the crap out of the AMD chip.the 2700+ would not OC very well despite what type of cooling you had with it...funny how things change and then come back full circle....
!