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: rzborusa who wrote (189368)	3/10/2006 10:00:07 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Yes, eracer, Intel (for some INEXPLICABLE REASON) turned up a couple of its cards. You seem to think that those cards that they didn't turn up are all like the face up ones. To deny there was a very big difference in the raw Athlon versus Conroe numbers is crazy. I didn't mention anything about "unturned cards" in my post, which I assume you mean to be future Conroe performance gains and tweaks above and beyond what the benchmark numbers showed. I was merely showing Dan3 how far off his math and AM2 vs. Conroe performance conclusion was. Dan3 claimed the overclocked Athlon and Conroe "were within a few percent of each other on some multithreaded applications". He was wrong. The best case scenario for Athlon was in iTunes where it was still behind by 12%, or by roughly two speed grades. The Athlon needed to be overclocked to 3.2GHz to match the 2.66GHz Conroe result <<<assuming>>> the benchmark was reasonably accurate. He claimed the only cases where Conroe was beating Athlon by large numbers were the benchmarks where Anandtech accidentally had the resolution higher for Athlon than Conroe. His "large numbers" comment was about future Conroe versus current Athlon, not future Conroe versus future AM2. He is either in complete denial or doesn't understand that a 2.67GHz Conroe running at 3-4 speed grades on average ahead of a 2.8GHz FX-60 are large gains. There was no way possible with Dan3's guess of a 10% clock-for-clock AM2 performance increase and using the Conroe vs. FX-60 benchmark numbers that AM2 could possibly trounce "any Conroe" in clock-for-clock performance. Charlie did an excellent job a few months back of trying to explain with numbers where Conroe and AM2 might end up in terms of performance. It was all speculation, but the benchmarks numbers for Conroe <<<if>>> accurate appear to back up Charlie's performance guesses: By the end of Q3, we will most likely have a Conroe 2.66 vs an X2 3.0, both at 65nm. If a Pentium M is about five per cent slower than an A64 clock for clock, then Conroe's will be at about 125% of an X2's speed. FS will add maybe five per cent from core efficiencies and DDR2 another five per cent to the AMD numbers. This would put AMD at 3.0 * 110% or about 3.3 Inq Nebulous Units (INU) in performance, Conroe will be at 2.66 * 1.25%, 3.325 INU. In Q4, clocks will go to 3.2 and 3.0 for X2 and Conroe respectively, and the INU count will jump to around 3.52 vs 3.75. theinquirer.net

To: rzborusa who wrote (189368)	3/10/2006 10:11:44 PM
From: titon1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Talking about future Conroe/Merom improvements I found this on Yahoo board: "The current approach of Intel to get out of the crisis, is actually a worse cure than the disease itself: Instead of really biting the bullet to develop a next generation architecture, they are just adding complexity to an already very complex architecture (PIII Tualatin). As one of the posters said, the costs of the complexity added are greater than the marginal benefits. It seems that Intel drank its own marketing Kool-Aid: They wanted to push sales of processors beyond what the market needed, so they invented fictitious features just to pump them in marketing. I very well remember the advertising of the Pentium III optimized for fast internet experience (!!). Then, it came the gigahertz crisis: Management wanted something easy to sell, gigahertz, and commanded the whole organization to deliver gigahertz. The result was meaningless gigahertz, AMD having an incredible performance and thermal lead, and FIVE YEARS of wasted efforts that now have to be thrown into the garbage for good to go back to the Pentium III." finance.messages.yahoo.com media2.andrew.cmu.edu