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 Phud who wrote (155532)	4/10/2005 12:47:39 PM
From: muzosi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

yep, it's a really interesting conclusion that a dual core processor does better in multi-tasking than a single core processor.

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (155532)	4/10/2005 7:52:17 PM
From: Gopher Broke	Respond to of 275872

AMD gets trounced in multi-tasking benchmarks I guess you missed this bit. The multitasking tests show the Pentium D 2.8GHz and the Athlon 64 3500+ as equal competitors, with AMD winning the first two tests and Intel winning the last. This just goes to show you that not all multitasking will be immediately faster on a dual core chip. Just goes to show you can prove anything if you are sufficiently selective about the data you analyse. What amazes me is that Intel's dual core chips are really so poor at multitasking that they struggle to compete with the single cores.

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (155532)	4/10/2005 8:21:34 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Why should I pay any attention to benchmarks that compare a dual-core Intel system to a single-core Athlon 64 system when 1. I can't buy an Intel dual-core system 2. AMD's solution will beat Intel to market Petz

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (155532)	4/10/2005 9:43:37 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Ephud: Testing a future, if not cancelled, CPU against current available CPUs on contrived tasks that don't measure all work done at current prices matching some future price, is not called being trounced, but sheer cheating. head to head, that future CPU in the common benchmarks loses most of the tests, on true multitasking as done by real people, loses more tests. And they didn't even test against dual Opteron, either two socket, which is available now, or dual core single socket which will be available in less than two weeks. And, oh look, given current pricing trends, it should have been tested against a A64 3800+ or 4100+ (2.6GHz 512KB L2) since 2.8 GHz, and even possibly, 3.0GHz gets released by then. Oh, that future CPU would be beaten so soundly. Given that, the reviewers were kept from doing anything of that sort. Kind of makes those reviews quite valueless. As others have stated that. A rant by a well known person was posted earlier which, of course, you deliberately forgot 5 seconds after reading it. And it wouldn't do to repost it, because you will forget to look, as it trashes your views. And I did notice that the standard "trounced" didn't include your standard SPECint_base or SPECfp_base, even though the peak scores really matter. What happened, did it get bad 2 core numbers? Perhaps all the numbers not included were ones where it was so bad, that Intel couldn't bear or was too embarrassed to have them see the light of day. Pete