SI
SI
discoversearch

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: fingolfen who wrote (141746)8/16/2001 12:51:52 PM
From: Dan3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
Re: If you HONESTLY believe that, I...

We brought in a 1.7GHZ P4 for testing (since some people are buying them and we have to support them). We need to be able to help users through workarounds for the P4 bugs like the "Oracle client won't install" issue. (Which is actually the only persistent issue we've had with P4 - there are no issues with the Athlons). So we pretty routinely run various software on similar 1.3GHZ Athlons and 1.7GHZ P4s for final pre-delivery tests.

Our 1.3GHZ Athlons generally run the same speed as the 1.7GHZ P4, each processor has its favorite code, but these two chips overall, in our experience, offer the same performance. Athlon 4 tests out up to 80% faster in IPC than Athlon depending on the software used, but a very fair estimate for overall performance is 10%, which would put a 1.3GHZ Athlon 4 equal to a 1.87GHZ P4.

If you honestly believe anything different, go run your own tests.



To: fingolfen who wrote (141746)8/16/2001 4:22:25 PM
From: Jim McMannis  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 186894
 
Fin,
RE:"Did Intel fix the chip or did Intel/Bapco fix the benchmarks? I think it's pretty clear that Intel/Bapco fixed the benchmarks.
If you HONESTLY believe that, I pity you."

Trust me, they fixed the benchmarks. Pity is foolish.
Especially since Intel stated their goal to find benchmarks that make P4 look good.
Jim