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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (18090)	11/7/2000 3:35:41 PM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 275872

otherwise their next year pIII-1.13GHz processor would be faster than p4-1.5GHz Albert, Several members of the thread (myself included) speculated back some time that this was in fact the reason Intel delayed the 1.13Ghz. Al

To: AK2004 who wrote (18090)	11/7/2000 3:35:58 PM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

albert, the 10-20% slower IPC is for legacy code. I expect they can make up that amount using SSE2 for certain aps, like the benchmarks they preload onto the hard disks of the systems sent to reviewers. In fact, they will probably preload so many Intel benchmarks that there is only 1% free space left! Petz

To: AK2004 who wrote (18090)	11/7/2000 3:37:23 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 275872

Albert, I think the leaked Billybob spec numbers still look like the best estimate. 502 specint2k, 525 specfp2k, compared to best numbers of 438/327 for 1ghz piii/OR840 or 461/320 for the late, lamented 1.13ghz / VC820. These numbers are not directly comparable with AMD because of the compiler factor, but I think the 14 % increase vs. the 1ghz cumine on Specint is a reasonable estimate for non-fp stuff. The big jump in FP is heavily dependent on both the compiler and SSE2 optimization, but that's what will look best; x87 FP stuff will likely look worse than integer results. Chees, Dan.