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: Elmer who wrote (119530)	7/6/2000 10:10:13 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1579389

Elmer Re..<<hmaly, I can't believe you are saying this. <<<<<p> Why not, I enjoyed it as much as Paul Demond and Tom did when they wrote the articles.<br> <<<a href="http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT112299000000&PageNum=7" target="_blank">http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT112299000...</a> <<<<<<<br> Here is a part of that article<<<The latency distribution graph Hady provides show that the DRDRAM latency running Streams Triad ranges from 82.5 ns (single RIMM system?) to 165 ns, with the bulk of accesses below 130 ns. The handicapped PC100 system shows latency from 90 ns to 240 ns, with the bulk of accesses in 170 ns range. The distribution of latencies in the 440BX system also suggests that the most efficacious open page management policy was not used. This benchmark is unfair and misleading for three main reasons - the 440BX system was sandbagged, the choice of the Streams benchmark is biased in favour of the 820's faster system bus, and the fact that Streams shows performance characteristics completely different from the vast majority of applications run on personal computers. Buyer beware! <<<<<<p> In other words Elmer, Intel cooked the test. A real honorable bunch of guys there.<p> <<<<Did you complain when AMD posted TTurd benchmarks and used #1 an unavailable motherboard, #2 an unavailable version of directX, #3 an unavailable graphics driver? <<<<<p> Of course not. I never heard of these complaints by anyone other than you, and I figured; Elmers whining again. I mean weren't the first benchmarks on coppermine put out on a new motherboard, with new sse2 optimizations? That didn't seem to keep you from droning on about them ad nauseum for 6 months.<p> <<<<<<Precicely my point. All these features and still no performance advantage. <<<<<br> Is that so Intel breath. Read on and then disprove these statements, with links of course.<br> <<<<<<<a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q2/000619/duron-02.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q2/000619/duron-02.html</a><br> <<<<<<I already pointed out that Celeron is castrated by the fact that it's only supposed to run at 66 MHz bus clock, which has a significant performance impact. AMD is not trying to slow down Duron artificially. Instead of that AMD is using the honest approach and runs Duron at the same bus clock of 200 MHz DDR that is also used by any Athlon-processor. This fact is the secret of Duron's superior performance over Intel's Celeron, as you will see later. <<<<<p> <<<<<SMP price/performance leader. That's what the discussion was about remember????<p> EP <<<<<<SMP price/performance leader. That's what the discussion was about remember???? <<<<<<p> Elmer, here is the sentence where you talked of the superiority of the GTL bus. Where does it mention SMP?<p> <<<<So good does it work and so seemlessly for the designer that it's far and away the world's price/performance leader while AMD's superior architecture is still MIA a year after the Athlon introduction. <p> The question still stands. What superior characteristics does the GTL have over the EV-6 bus. Provide links to prove EV-6 in not SMP compatable. A SMP chipset has already been demoed, so I assume the EV-6 is SMP, but if you have links, prove me wrong.