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 (240188)	9/10/2007 3:30:04 PM
From: Proesterchen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Heise.de noted in the linked article that they used 64bit binaries for SPECint, which are known to be slower than 32bit bins/64bit OS for Intel Xeons. Also, they noted that they didn't use the SmartHeap libs available and used for submissions to spec.org. Heise.de and their paper publication c't has been doing their own SPEC runs this way (always base, never trying to out-optimize the OEMs for highest scores) for as long as I can remember. On top of this, they also linked to the highest Xeon scroes currently published at spec.org.. That and being as open about their methods as they were, I wouldn't call the results bogus, or heise.de an AMD booster. btw: The highest Xeon SPECint_rate_base2006 they linked to is even higher at 98.9: spec.org