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: dale_laroy who wrote (72880)	3/1/2002 2:49:06 PM
From: bacchus_ii	Respond to of 275872

RE:"AMD has always claimed it was relative to Athlon (TBird)." NO. See page 8 athlonxp.amd.com In order to provide an accurate comparison between systems based on the AMD Athlon XP processor and systems based on the Pentium 4 processor, system configurations were kept as similar as possible. Gottfried

To: dale_laroy who wrote (72880)	3/1/2002 3:19:34 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

AMD is long overdue in releasing it's definition of how QS is derived. I would like to know exactly what benchmark suite is used now, even if it is subject to annual revision. I believe they picked TBird as the base because they thought P4 with 512K cache and (possibly) even would hyperthreading would eventually reach a TBird IPC rating. Initially, of course, it made sense to compare to TBirds, because the XP1500+ part was definitely a little faster than a 1400 TBird, and, without the QS rating, it would be tough to sell as a "1.33 GHz" part. With differences increasing between the AMD cores and the Intel cores (cache size, Hammer coming, HTh, etc.), AMD had better get more pro-active in standardizing and developing benchmarks, or Intel will figure out a way to exploit their strengths and minimize their weaknesses to an even larger degree than now. Petz