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: Petz who wrote (75515)	10/14/1999 1:59:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572989

Paul, PB or anybody: Has Intel disclosed anything about going to a 166 MHz bus? Is this do-able with the GTL+ protocol? PC166 would certainly be faster than 800 MHz RDRAM. Petz

To: Petz who wrote (75515)	10/14/1999 5:20:00 PM
From: Gopher Broke	Respond to of 1572989

What benchmark do you anticipate? Intel will presumably have to have some argument to justify these benchmarks, and I don't see it. Use of the proprietary instruction in benchmark nobbling can easily be nullified, as we have seen, by performing the equivalent tweaks using the competitors instruction set and then cross comparing the matched pair of nobbled benchmarks. Will they make us go through those old arguments again? A benchmark that leverages the Cumine's faster L2 would have to be pretty finely tuned not to also take advantage of the Athlon's larger L1 cache? Again, a quick tweak to the benchmark, (like halving or doubling the size of data accessed?) should put the Athlon better or on par respectively. So then we have to argue whether Intel have truly hit the sweet spot of all apps with their caching, or whether the new benchmark is a scam. And in the end we will look at real world apps and games, which is what counts after all.

To: Petz who wrote (75515)	10/14/1999 5:39:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572989

Petz, <The only way CuMine will look good is if Intel distributes new benchmarks with the processor.> Thank you for COMPLETELY IGNORING what Intel revealed at MPF regarding Coppermine's performance on SPECint95 and SPECfp95, two benchmarks that have been around for four years already. As for Firingsquad, I'm not going to comment on the article, mainly because it would take too much time for me to list every single fault I found in that article. Tenchusatsu