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: Ali Chen who wrote (74483)	3/15/2002 1:10:47 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Ali: You are the one in the wrong coordinate space. Because seconds in sixtrack are not the same as seconds in twolf. Two runs on systems having the same number of seconds do not yield the same score. 1 second for gap and 1000 seconds for twolf leads to a different score than 1000 seconds for gap and a second for twolf. Thus you need 12 seconds vectors (one for each test) and another for clock or nanoseconds (1/clock). In either case you still wind up with a polynomial in the divisor which leads to an infinite polynomial in the numerator after mathematical procedures to remove all X from the denominator. Which leads to an infinite order approximation. Which if you took either signal processing or control theory, you would know this. And that's not FUD, but fact! Besides, if you look at your formula, you just proved what the post stated that began all this. Surely you must have noticed that even if the clock rate was infinite, the score would not go above a certain value (C1/C3). Thus, there exists a hard limit on performance. That that line is related to caches, memory speeds and latency. And that if Hammer reaches arround 2000, P4 will never catch up no matter how fast it clocks. Pete