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: dougSF30 who wrote (226511)	2/21/2007 7:08:12 AM
From: DDB_WO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Doug - that should make you even more confident, that Intel will stay the top performer: "When I pressed him on what exactly that 40 percent includes, it was slightly less clear; he mentioned a number of metrics, including performance per watt." blogs.business2.com

To: dougSF30 who wrote (226511)	2/21/2007 11:30:09 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

(EDITED) I believe the AMD statement was that the 40% improvement was a simulation for "typical customer floating point codes." AMD obviously does not have all customer codes to test against, so the 40% number is based on ACTUAL results from stuff that was measured. Apparently the stuff that was measured showed a 43% advantage. You also don't seem to be aware of the fact that Intel's dual socket quad core Xeon gets a SPEC2006_fp_rate of only 58.8. That is only 22% above a pair of DUAL CORE Opterons. DO do really think doubling the # of cores and doubling the FP hardware in each core will not completely obliterate QC xeon? So C2D really sucks in floating point server performance. 8-way Opteron beats 8-way QC Xeon X5355 by 48%. With the old core. Petz