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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (62324)6/18/1999 4:22:00 PM
From: Petz  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572115
 
Elmer specific SPECint and SPECfp benchmarks quoted on JC's site
jc-news.com
benchmark Score Compared Compared
to Xeon-550 to PIII-500
SPECint_base95 25.1
SPECint_95 25.7 24.3 (+5.76%) 20.6 (+24.76%)
SPECfp_base95 21.4 15.1 (+41.72%) 13.2 (+62.12%)
SPECfp_95 22.5 16.8 (+33.93%) 14.7 (+53.06%)

The blurb also mentions that the K7 test system from which these
benchmarks were taken only had 1/3 speed L2 cache and it was equipped
with a 7200 RPM disk (not 10K RPM) and "not the fastest memory
available, but still really sweet setup."

Petz



To: Elmer who wrote (62324)6/18/1999 4:31:00 PM
From: fyo  Respond to of 1572115
 
EP - Re: Not if you could see some long term reliability data for the 900MHz chilled part.

Actually, it was 993MHz (I found a reference).

Anyway, the reason I started this whole 900MHz thing was to point out that I don't think that the P6 core (architecture), as such, is to blame. While it might not reach 2GHz, there seems to be no reason that it could not reach 1GHz.

--fyodor


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News