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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pgerassi who wrote (107900)	8/21/2000 3:59:26 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Pete, a few questions: 1) How do you know there are some integer micro-ops in Willamette that will take a full clock cycle to complete, as opposed to half a clock? Most of your argument hinges on this assumption. 2) Did you read my previous post regarding Flynn's bottleneck? Part of your argument is based on the notion that the Willamette architects forgot about Flynn's bottleneck. 3) If "Athlon uses less optimization and more brute force so that the balance is favorable for a wide set of programs," then why does AMD rely on an optimized compiler in order to compete in SPEC2000 scores? All processors these days need optimized code in order to be effective. There is no such thing as a "brute force" processor anymore; even Athlon needs specially tweaked code to highlight its advantages. 4) Can you show me the benchmarks which prove that "Athlon does better at serving, multitasking, and scientific number crunching"? Even Pentium III stays rather close to Athlon in scientific number crunching, supposedly one of Athlon's strengths due to its beefed-up FPU. Tenchusatsu