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 (74945)	3/19/2002 11:42:54 AM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Ali: And exactly what the current formula is? Model rating = 1300 + (f - 1200)100/66 Each "successive addition" changes the CPU core frequency in less and less diminished steps (in %%-wise); therefore the difference between consecutive scores should not drop faster than it started at 1500+, which was 0.1/step I would argue that you are wrong&#133 At very low frequencies, the CPU is (almost) never waiting for anything external and scaling is therefore completely linear. That is, the drop in "difference between consecutive scores" (d²P/df²) is zero. At higher frequencies, the probability of the CPU having to wait for accesses to main memory increases and becomes significant. At this point d²P/df² > 0. This contradicts your claim that "the difference between consecutive scores should not drop faster than it started at". Remember, this has nothing to do with quantispeed. The increase in (real) frequency between successive model numbers is a constant 66MHz. no matter how funny it sounds, but the ability of P4 to "scale better" is a direct consequence of it's lower IPC. &#133 In this case(assuming the memory/FSB still runs at the same frequency), the change in df will make almost no difference in performance, so your dP/df will be zero.* However, in the AthlonXP vs P4 case, there is a huge difference in available bandwidth. This significantly impacts not only performance, but also scaling. Same goes for larger caches, although this is certainly harder to compare directly, since the caches are very different in nature (latency, bandwidth and associativity - along with size). -fyo