• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    18
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Ah yes, the well known i5.90689059561

    Edit: i5.90689059560851852932405837343720668462464580071706167251050905035703300440298377837242021827745839719063803418530941917054164942532445171041739

      • @Tyfud
        link
        English
        223 days ago

        I’m not OP, but my guess is they’re referring to the Intel math bug that some i5’s had. I’m struggling to track it down, but it’s basically an issue with doing long division where the floating point math would produce a very wrong result.

        You can see more here at least for the bug/issue that existed in the 90’s here

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          83 days ago

          I’m not actually, just that a binary integer that overflows at 60 couldn’t exist, hence the 5.907 whatever bit length

          • @Tyfud
            link
            English
            53 days ago

            oh, that’s actually clever. And I’m saying that as a software engineer. I missed that possibility :)

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              33 days ago

              I should have phrased it differently, like “Ah yes, the well known 5.9068905956 bit integer.” But thanks

    • chingadera
      link
      104 days ago

      Is this what over-clocking is?