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: Process Boy who wrote (74231)	10/6/1999 2:59:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572953

PB - RE: "Next opportunity to see some Cumine spec numbers is at product launch" JC has a link to a site which supposedly has "E" 600 SPEC scores. At 600MHz specint_base specfp_base 29.............. 25 JC said this - "20% improvement in specint and an impossible sounding 57% boost in specfp. This would imply that PIII with lower latency 256K L2 by far outwits a PIII Xeon of much higher clock with 2MB (higher latency, albeit) L2. That's, well, why I suspect that either the report is in error or some sort of interesting optimizations are being used. Of course, this might just be me being an AMD apologist and making up excuses as to why these scores are significantly higher than that of the K7-600. Oh, and for reference, that c't page earlier today said that Coppermine is instead 12% faster in specint and 20% faster in specfp (than Katmai)...) jc-news.com Those numbers are WAY off from what C't says. Guess this raises more questions than answers them. Those scores are still lower than the estimated 700 scores AMD put up yesterday. JC has confirmed that the those Athlon estimates are NOT with "increased or sped up cache". So they aren't for the Ultra. Intel has just raised the bar, and AMD raised it further.

To: Process Boy who wrote (74231)	10/6/1999 8:53:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572953

Re: Next opportunity to see some Cumine spec numbers is at product launch... Those spec scores for Coppermine look very good. They may also lay to rest the argument that bandwidth is much more important than latency. The fp scores are a little suspicious - it will be interesting to see real world fp performance once Tom, Anand, etc. get a hold of a few test systems. AMD and Intel seem to be almost switching places. If present trends continue, Intel will have a chip that, clock for clock, slightly outperforms AMD in integer, while AMD will have a chip that more substantially outperforms Intel in floating point. But AMDs chip appears to be designed to be easier to manufacture at high MHZ. DDR266 isn't here yet, but all sources seem to agree that it is easier to manufacture than RDRAM 800 - but until that happens, we won't know. Looks like we have a horse race! If AMD can make good on the 800 and higher near term rumors, it should do well. If Intel can produce its usual huge high speed high volume even with that large fast cache, it will do well. It's ironic that AMD used a large, fast cache to make up for an architectural disadvantage in the K6-III vs Pentium-III contest, now Intel is using the same strategy against Athlon. I guess the heavy lifting is falling on the Intel process guys to crank this thing out in volume at 800 and above. Good luck! Dan