Intel Corporation (INTC) Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)

INTC 36.91

-1.1%

Dec 31 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (138954)	7/10/2001 1:46:04 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) of 186894

T. You are right, it was 800 MHz. The difference in TPC-C scores is just under 10%. If difference in TPC-C scores is 10%, with TPC being influenced by disk performance, 10% is very reasonable. On more CPU dependant benchmarks, the difference between even the half of the speed increase (700 to 800) would have been closer to 14% increase in clock speeds, especially in Cascades, which has 2 MB L2. But if you are right and 14% MHz increase with a very linear CPU performance increase was not enough, why would Intel release a 6% MHz increase (1.7 GHz to 1.8 GHz) with a less linear performance increase due to smaller L2 cache of P4? Joe PS: One good reason for releasing 800 MHz back then (assuming Intel was capable of doing so) is that Intel was definitely unable to make 900 MHz version back in 2000, since they still seem to be having problems with it in 2nd half of 2001, more than 3 months after the CPU was introduced (said to be shipping in March 2001)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next