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: Rink who wrote (219163)	12/5/2006 8:35:00 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Rink, I've heard that server apps that largely depend on FP performance on average correllate better with Spec_Rate_FP than Spec_FP. Is that correct or not? Are you going by what Pete claims? I don't have a high level of confidence in his claims. As for me, I'm not the best one to answer that but I'll offer a non expert guess. SPECfp_rate does not benefit much from caching so Intel's superior caching scheme and size doesn't shine on this benchmark. It naturally favors a high memory bandwidth design like AMD's. Is this truly representative? Ya got me. What I do find (not so) surprising is that now that AMD is spanked in just about all other benchmarks, suddenly SPECfp_rate has become much more important in the eyes of apologists. I can't help but think that had AMD excelled in SPECint_rate, it would then be the most important benchmark in the eyes of the same ones who are praising SPECfp_rate now.