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: fyodor_ who wrote (74985)	3/19/2002 6:13:41 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 275872

Fyo, "As for whether or not the jump in performance is "reasonable" to expect from a BIOS upgrade, normally I'd say it were on the high side." I actually meant the negative jump in performance from 1800+ data point to 1900+ data point, where d²P/df² jumped from flat -0.1 to -0.3. So, my assertion should be that 1900 and 2000 data are off mark, and the 2100 is just fine, as I said before. Also, just in case, the d²P/df² is always negative on performance curves ;-) - Ali

To: fyodor_ who wrote (74985)	3/20/2002 10:58:01 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

Benchmarking woes: the 3x-jump in second derivative can't happen unless BIOS made compulsory configuration changes to something Most of the benchmark sites repeat the tests on the lower speed grades. Otherwise they are lying when they announce the BIOS dates and driver versions for everything from Windows 2000 itself to chipset AGP driver. Unusual bumps in performance also happen when Intel or AMD makes unannounced improvements in the chip with each stepping, including bug fixes. In fact, the BIOS checks the chip version to see if various "bug fixes" implemented in the BIOS have to be enabled. So, since the benchmarkers don't upgrade their old chips, it looks like the newer chips have anomolously better performance. (The "bug fixes" can eat CPU time.) Petz