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: Petz who wrote (239490)	8/28/2007 6:47:15 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

The AMD system may have had a whole extra GPU card!

To: Petz who wrote (239490)	8/28/2007 7:12:21 PM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Look, there's a lot of sloppy reporting, but it didn't require liquid nitrogen to hit a new world record. The Intel system had 20 GHz of CPU power and the AMD system only had 12 GHz and beat it. If a 5 GHz overclock isn't really necessary, why do they bother? Did this forum just go backwards a dozen years in computer architecture knowledge? 3DMark, Petz. It's not a 100% scalable benchmark to begin with, so I don't know why anyone would take the sum of core gigahertz in a system and proclaim that as a measurement. Quite silly, too, for a benchmark that is primarily a gauge for GPU performance. By the way, I'm surprised no one has brought attention to the so-called "ominous Catalyst 7.7 drivers" that the Inquirer claimed were a part of the test configuration.