To: Elmer who wrote (98609 ) 3/15/2000 9:19:00 PM From: Ali Chen Respond to of 1570553
<Nobody else in the world can reproduce these low scores> I am curious, for how long will your broken record last? All SPEC numbers are perfectly reproducible, including P-III lower ones: heise.de heise.de heise.de For most recent numbers, see c't magazine 04/00, page 202: "1. Andreas Stiller: (as) Neue Messlatte Die Benchmark-Suite SPEC CPU2000 auf Pentium-III und Athlon-800 PrĀfstand, Prozessoren , Benchmark, SPEC,SPEC95, SPEC2000, CPU2000, OSG, CINT2000 CFP2000, Base, Peak, Coppermine-800, Athlon-800, Vtune 4.5, Microsoft Visual C++ 6, Digital Fortran 6.1, FORTRAN" When compared at similar system design (100-MHz memory), Athlon still beats the best Coppermine optimizations:macinfo.de <the new compiler is publicly available to anyone for free. AMD is lying and everyone knows it.> What everybody knows is that you are the liar. How could AMD lie about anything if the product is on the open market and "everybody" are free to conduct the benchmarking? Why don't you do it yourself? Why no one is publishing Coppermine SPEC score on every electric pole? Another question for you, Fudd: if someone runs the Coppermine-specifically-optimized SPEC binaries on a Athlon (or Winchip, or Cyrix) processor, what will happen? Will they run? I guess you are getting a little nervous, Fudd. The KX-133 Athlon boards are on the way to benchmark sites, new non-toy compilers are around the corner... Are you afraid of the 1GHz Athlon beating crap of the dual-RAMBUS/Coppermine in SPECfp? For how much, Elmer? Will a 1.2GHZ Coppermine beat a 1.0GHz VIA KX-133 Athlon system, what do you think? Do you have a washing machine for your pants when the time will come? And don't tell me that you did not see my post because of "ignore" list.