Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (61899)	6/16/1999 3:13:00 AM
From: fyo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572366

EP - Re: Krister, so are you confirming that the Intel results of 23.6 SpecInt95 were actual numbers you saw, or extrapolated, from a graph displayed at the Thursday presentation? As I said, Elmer was correct in his assessment. No absolute SPEC numbers were given at the talk. This is what I posted on FullOn3DNow! last friday: 2. They were presented as RELATIVE benchmarks. I.e. XX% higher than a Xeon and so forth. SPEC benchmarks for Xeons are well known, thus it is fairly easy to ESTIMATE what the K7 SPEC values should be. Clearly, there is some uncertainty left here and I have (along with several other web sites) asked AMD for the 'real' numbers. The SPEC numbers I _chose_ for the Xeon were those given on the SPEC site. I found 2 separate PIII/550 entries. One for a DELL machine, the other for an Intel machine. They cited nearly identical results (I used the Intel one). One thing that should be pointed out, however, is that the numbers quoted are NOT the baseline scores. After hearing the RealAudio recording of the talk, it seems clear that the benchmarks Dirk Meyer presented (in a relative form) were actually the baseline scores. Let me reiterate: Dirk Meyer did not present any absolute SPEC scores. Not for Intel CPUs. Not for AMD CPUs. --fyodor