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: tejek who wrote (69135)	8/18/1999 2:54:00 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Respond to of 1585966

ted, Full speed, smaller caches have been shown (in simulations) to perform better under load than half speed larger caches. AMD made this trade off, that's why a PIII and the Xeon will scale better under load than an Athlon. Others have mentioned AMD will be making a full speed cache Athlon in the future. Also, this first whack at a chipset can use tuning, they always do. So the answer lies somewhere between a better chipset could help and a faster cache will help. They (AMD) need to sell something, at some point in the design you just have to say that's good enough. No one questioned stability, I believe Anand questioned scaling for server applications. The concept of scale eludes most AMD proponents having experience with single threaded one cpu applications running Quake as their benchmark, the reason a Xeon costs $3k also is beyond them. They should ask someone who runs an MS Exchange mail server with more than 500 users what scale means, and why AMD has no chance (today) at this back office app.