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 (219217)	12/6/2006 10:35:23 AM
From: Elmer Phud	Respond to of 275872

Rink I know the customers a few years back looked at Spec_Int_Rate and Spec_FP_Rate more than Spec_Int and Spec_FP. Yes, this makes sense because both SPECint_rate and SPECfp_rate run multiple instances of the benchmark on multiple cores. So that is a much better gauge of a large system with multiple processors. The question though, was is SPECfp_rate a better indicator than SPECint_rate and the question seems to boil down to how useful is the cache in your application. Obviously business applications would not be heavily FP but SPECfp_rate thrashes the cache so some claim that makes it a good indicator.