Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) 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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

AMD 221.02

+6.4%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: mas_ who wrote (252928)	6/6/2008 1:30:06 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) of 275872

Debunking mas' Brisbane vs. Windsor "L2 latency changes caused a big performance hit" nonsense: Overall memory performance between the two cores did show a performance hit with the "Brisbane" core. In both Integer and Floating-Point calculations, we saw the "Brisbane" trail the "Windsor" by an average of 1.5% overall. Next, we used SANDRA's Memory Latency test to assess each processor's cache and memory subsystems. With the "Brisbane" based 5000+, Random Access Memory Latency weighed in at 142ns whereas the "Windsor" based 5000+ recorded a lower 124ns latency. This equated to a 14.5% increase in latency with the "Brisbane" core, which is no small delta. To further quantify the impact of this latency on performance, we will continue our comparison between the two cores with several more synthetic and real-world benchmarks. When we ran SANDRA's Cache and Memory Latency test, we recorded no significant variations, with the "Brisbane" coming in with slightly better results than the "Windsor" core. Brisbane was slower than Windsor due to an increase in MAIN MEMORY latency, not the small L2 cycle increase. hothardware.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next