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: DDB_WO who wrote (226510)	2/21/2007 2:43:00 AM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I'm guessing that's an inaccurate paraphrase by the reporter in question. Show me an AMD PR, or a quote from any AMD person saying that, instead of "simulations", like AMD used in their release a couple weeks back. Well, regarding integer (actually general) performance we just have some "10% faster than C2D at the same clock" statement from a poster on XtremeSystems. Uh huh. I'll have a few grains of salt with that, thanks, even though that will not be enough, given Intel's clock advantage. :)

To: DDB_WO who wrote (226510)	2/21/2007 5:52:21 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: regarding integer (actually general) performance we just have some "10% faster than C2D at the same clock" The cache to CPU bandwidth has been increased 100%. Given the way X86 uses caches (as a proxy for registers) a very large increase in integer IPC is quite possible. How soon until 3.4ghz Conroes are out there to catch up to K10? I think they'll be able to make that. Floating point, OTOH, looks like a "wait for 45nm" issue. I'm sure Intel knows all this, and it may explain their rush to 45nm.