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 (69875)	8/25/1999 3:08:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575871

<Was the 61% increase with a 512K L2? Apparently Win2000 shows a greater than 100% improvement, suggesting that the bus is not the real issue here. With the use of the 1 & 2 Meg L2 Xeons, the bus should not be a significant factor.> All of the processors were Pentium III Xeons w/ 2 MB cache. The bus is always a factor, even for 2 MB cache. How much of a factor is it? It depends on just about everything, even the processor core and its "tolerance" to latency. But I definitely don't think it's as much of a factor as AMD's foils may suggest. Also, remember that these are ServerBench scores, which is a custom benchmark from ZDNet. Other benchmark results may vary. Heck, results may vary between operating systems as well. Perhaps Windows 2000 can make better use of eight processors than NT 4.0. However, I have no idea how you'll ever see greater than 100% improvement going from four to eight processors. Maybe that figure came from the improvement from 450NX to Profusion, suggesting that the 450NX chipset itself was a limiting factor. ZDNet compared a 4-way Profusion to 8-way Profusion, a more apples-to-apples comparison. This is important for customers who want to buy a Profusion with only four processors and leave room for future upgradability. Tenchusatsu