SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Process Boy who wrote (74231)10/6/1999 2:59:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr  Read Replies (1) of 1573018
 
PB - RE: "Next opportunity to see some Cumine spec numbers is at product launch"

JC has a link to a site which supposedly has "E" 600 SPEC scores.

At 600MHz
specint_base specfp_base
29.............. 25

JC said this - "20% improvement in specint and an impossible sounding 57% boost in specfp. This would imply that PIII with lower latency 256K L2 by far outwits a PIII Xeon of much higher clock with 2MB (higher latency, albeit) L2. That's, well, why I suspect that either the report is in error or some sort of interesting optimizations are being used. Of course, this might just be me being an AMD apologist and making up excuses as to why these scores are significantly higher than that of the K7-600. Oh, and for reference, that c't page earlier today said that Coppermine is instead 12% faster in specint and 20% faster in specfp (than Katmai)...)

jc-news.com

Those numbers are WAY off from what C't says. Guess this raises more questions than answers them.

Those scores are still lower than the estimated 700 scores AMD put up yesterday. JC has confirmed that the those Athlon estimates are NOT with "increased or sped up cache". So they aren't for the Ultra.

Intel has just raised the bar,

and AMD raised it further.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext