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 (115633)	6/12/2000 6:54:00 PM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 1575781

Thunderbird's Performance What do you think of Thunderbird's Performance? Great! Better than I expected 8.73% Okay, about what I was expecting 60.52% Bad, no where near what I was expecting 30.75% Number of votes: 1008 Source AMDZone

To: Petz who wrote (115633)	6/12/2000 7:04:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575781

Re: "YOU: Interesting to note that you can say this and not get attacked TBird lowers cost by at least $20, but the real benefit is higher MHz. " Ahhhh sorry to break the news to you Petz but there is no improvement in clock speed. I know I know.... just wait, there will be. As if 3 years 8 months wasn't a long enough wait. EP

To: Petz who wrote (115633)	6/12/2000 8:02:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575781

Dear John: The problem with the higher latency scores are due to the use of exclusive cache. The upside is that you are not duplicating the contents but, the downside is you have to write back the L1 cache victims. This doubles the apparent latency and halves the apparent bandwidth, but on most programs the L1 cache hit rate will cover the L2 latency completely. All it takes is about five or six successive hits to the L1 caches for the underlying L2 latency to disappear. The testing programs used are a "corner" case rarely seen in general code. Pete