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: Joe NYC who wrote (126157)	1/26/2001 10:28:09 PM
From: muzosi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The only explanation that I can come up with is that context switching between the number of simultaneous threads puts a severe stress on any single processor CPU Especially with a 20 stage pipeline of P4, it is not very surprising. Muzo

To: Joe NYC who wrote (126157)	1/26/2001 11:48:20 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Joe - Re: "The first stepping was limited to 100/200, and sold that way. " Read the ENTIRE thread, This guy admittedly has an axe to grind with Intel and is now out selling his home-brew version of software benchmarks to Intel's competitors - and DOING THIS AT A CONFERENCE WHICH EXCLUDED INTEL !!! Pretty Chicken Shit, I must say. Paul

To: Joe NYC who wrote (126157)	1/31/2001 11:51:11 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 186894

I think there was some confusion here recently about the CSA benchmark suite. This story was the source of confusion: eet.com It describe dual Piii 733 CPU miraculously outperforming 1.5 GHz P4 and 1.2 GHz Athlon. I came across an article that probably explains what was going on, namely that the dual Piii were in fact 1 GHz. With this fact, the benchmarks start to make sense. Here is the article, on which the EET article was based: inqst.com Joe