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: pgerassi who wrote (74171)	3/11/2002 3:24:03 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Pete, "Fallen into another trap I see..." I see: "you use as base call them p1 and p2 where the x coordinate is the clock frequency and the y coordinate the SPECint score." I told you that <frequency> - <score> are wrong coordinates to do performance projections. 2. "call them p1 and p2" while "y = (y2 - y1)(x3 - x2)/(x2 - x1) + y2" I see, p1 and p2 are defined, but your equation does not contain p1 nor p2. Little details? I guess not. "No way is the std. dev. of those SPECint scores anywhere near that!" Is this a statement of fact, or your expert opinion? Have you ever run SPEC benchmarks? "Just look how far off the projections are from 1.5 and 1.6 to 2.0 for the 0.18u P4." Looking: _My_ projections are just fine, within +-0.2%, the R^^2 coefficient is 0.9998 across all _eight_ published data points (SPECint2000_peak, Intel D850GB compiler 5.0.1 built 010525Z), last data point for 2000MHz spec.org I can even give you the equation, check yourself: Score = 10000/(19875/f+5.3044), where f is the core frequency in MHz. "They are definitly non linear and appear to have serious 2nd and 3rd order coefficients. Thus your methods fail using historical numbers where the results are known now." Didn't I tell you that <frequency> - <score> are wrong coordinates to do performance projections? Regarding the failed method, see above. "as little as one month prior having nearly 1% lower performance on the supposed exact system with the same supposedly exact same software." Are you sure that the software was exact? To be accurate, those submissions differ by one week only ;-) "..those standard deviation terms that newbies miss" I think that professionals must pay more attention to details of discussion. Please re-read my previous post, and ask questions if you didn't understand something. - Ali