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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (90974)	2/1/2000 9:56:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575981

Re: "<Intel had to slow the memory interface to get it stable> No they didn't, at least not to solve the 3-RIMM problem. What Intel did was limit the number of open banks, but that limit was already put in place before the 3-RIMM problem." Sounds to me like a problem with the repeater hub. Likely it's been or soon will be fixed. EP

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (90974)	2/2/2000 1:46:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 1575981

So were Tom's playing Q3 Joe

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (90974)	2/2/2000 2:06:00 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575981

Tench, some of your claims re:i820 and RAMBUS are not supportable. <The only change they made between September 29 and the actual release date of mid-November was to take away one of the RIMM slots. That has nothing to do with the speed of the memory interface. In fact, because of a peculiarity in the Rambus protocol, a two-RIMM motherboard performs slightly better than a three-RIMM board> Oh, really. 12/15/99 Benchmark results (fixed 2-RIMM i820 board), 750 MHz, benchmark results at www6.tomshardware.com Benchmark............. BX i820 i820 advantage Bapco Sysmark 98.... 307..309....+1% Bapco Sysmark NT.... 335..321....-4% Naturally Speaking..... 217..200....-8% Netshow Encoder...... 228..240....+5% Photoshop 5.0.............435..434....-0% Now, from the earlier review www6.tomshardware.com quoted in my original post beta.siliconinvestor.com Benchmark............. BX i820 i820 advantage Bapco Sysmark 98.... 245..244....-0% Bapco Sysmark NT.... 268..268.... 0% Naturally Speaking.....178..182....+2% Netshow Encoder.......163..194....+19% Photoshop 5.0.............225..263....+17% Taking all the benchmarks, on average: 10/05/99: i820 with RDRAM 8% faster than BX/PC100 12/15/99: i820 with RDRAM 1% slower than BX/PC100 If anything, the later review whould have shown even better results for the i820, because the early review was with a Katmai (0.25u) CPU rather than a Coppermine (0.18). Also, an improved memory interface should be even more important at 750 MHz than at 600 MHz. Conclusion, your statement about KX-133 and PC-133 being an inferior chipset and memory technology because it "only" adds a few percent to performance of business benchmarks is certainly premature, hasty and ill-founded. <You can't have it both ways, you know. Either RDRAM demonstrates no performance advantage over SDRAM, or RDRAM gives Coppermine an unfair advantage over Athlon. Which is it?> RDRAM with the i840 chipset demonstrates an advantage in the SPEC benchmarks, certain Adobe Photoshop filters and in a few well-chosen streaming data benchmarks like Netshow encoder. It does not add any performance to content creation applications, general business applications or games. RDRAM with the i820 is almost totally devoid of redeeming qualities except for running SPEC benchmarks all day. Petz