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: Elmer who wrote (81079)	5/30/2002 1:12:34 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 275872

Elmer, Re: "The SPEC integer score was 701. I was actually expecting a bit better than this. The FP though was right where I thought it would be." When Intel announced that SPEC scores would be 70% higher than Merced, I expected a SPECint of 535-645 (1.7 * 314 or 379 - Dell and HP submissions). 701 was pleasantly surprising to me. By the same token, I was expecting about 1200 for SPECfp, so again, 1350 was a pleasant surprise. wbmw

To: Elmer who wrote (81079)	5/30/2002 2:58:57 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, re: Itanium II SPECint=701, SPECfp=1350 These results are not on the spec.org site, so I guess they aren't real yet. And the integer score is half what is expected of the first hammer system. The worst possible FP score for a 2 GHz Clawhammer would be 596*1.2=715, based on a 20% clock increase from the 1667 MHz and a 33% memory bandwidth increase. But we both know that SSE2 will make a big, big difference. That, and lower latency to memory should give the Hammer a SPECfp of at least 900. AMD Athlon 64 - Twice the integer performance and 2/3 the floating point performance of Intel's $2,000 200 watt monstrosity. Petz