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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (57175)	10/4/2001 3:18:09 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tench, "a standard benchmark for performance is the acceleration time from zero to 60 MPH" Really? How about "cornering stability", MPG, "fun to drive"? BTW, speaking about 0-60, at what altitude above the sea level? With what kind of fuel? Road pavement? Tire conditions? Driver skills? You do have "standards" to all of the above? Have you ever tried yourself to repeat the published 0-60 number for your car? "The trouble with the processor performance game is that there is no de facto standard of measurement besides clock speed." The trouble is that the area of computing is ovewhelmingly multidimensional, which implies that there will be never a good single measure. As I pointed out earlier, the Intel "clock speed" is no better measurable function than AMD "quanispeed". Given the vast multidimensionality of the PC, AMD solution could be the best. The problem with AMD is that they are gradually loosing relative performance, and it is clear that Athlon/DDR/whatever platform cannot hold. The only hope is Hammer family, but it is still in distant future, and knowing AMD track record in platform engineering, I remain skeptical wrt overall platform performance. - Ali

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (57175)	10/4/2001 5:46:09 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Tench: The trouble with the processor performance game is that there is no de facto standard of measurement besides clock speed. Obviously this is not a problem that Intel is very willing to fix, but AMD's arbitrary "quantispeed" rating is no solution, either. Why are you so certain that AMD's rating scheme is "arbitrary"? They haven't announced any details so far and while it may wind up being (seemingly) arbitrary, it might not. What would you say if AMD announced that their scheme is based on SPECint performance compared to Thunderbird? Or P4? If you take a look at spec.org, both appear theoretical possibilities, since the 1.4GHz Tbird matches the (inexistant) 1.6GHz P4 (score derived by averaging 1.5GHz and 1.7GHz scores) - and that's using one of the slower motherboards out there. It's unclear to me exactly how much the Palomino will increase SPECint scores, but it could well be enough that the rating is relative to AMD's own Tbird core. If Palomino only increases scores none to slightly, that's still enough for the rating to apply to the P4 core. An average of SPECint and SPECfp might also be the basis. Then again, it might also be fairly arbitrary&#133 the point is, we just don't know yet and I think it's too early to condemn it. -fyo