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: wanna_bmw who wrote (151226)	12/5/2001 5:37:17 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Wanda, "This quote gave me the impression that Kapkan was comparing his program to real world code." If the code does represent some real kernels, how this coincidence may possibly change the original intent of the program? It does not. So, do not overblow your impressions and do not attack "side effects" of the "Khapstone" benchmark. "I have already refuted those findings with details that are neither tiny nor insignificant." No you don't. No matter what your excuses are, the fact remains that on a decode-limited application the P4 running at "marketing frequency" of 2000MHz has the same performance as P-III running at "true" 1000MHz. I just don't see how the internal details of how many "decoders", 2 or 1.5, or else, can obscure the simple conclusion: A decoder is a functional unit, it is designed to deliver certain performance. As the Khapstone benchmark shows, when decoders are exposed to heavy decoding job, 2000MHz of p4 are equal to 1000MHz of P-III. Therefore this points more and more to the conclusion that majority of P4 die area is running at MarketHertz, not MegaHertz. As I always have been saying, the Intel's "MarketHertz" are no better nor worse than AMD's "quanti-speed". Plain and simple, is not it? End of discussion. - Ali "P.S. Still wondering where Intel accounts for stock repurchasing on their balance sheet?" They are aside. What's your question? Still wondering how TLB design affects task switching?