SI
SI
discoversearch

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: mas_ who wrote (252849)6/5/2008 2:08:57 PM
From: dougSF30Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Because:

(1) Those few "numbers" in isolation do not tell anywhere near the whole story.

(2) It is unclear if those numbers are correct.

(3) Common sense tells most of us otherwise.

(4) Benchmarks and rumored benchmarks say otherwise.

In short, I believe you are suffering from your usual problem: insufficient data to support your claim, and an inability to recognize that Intel had vastly more data available to them when they designed Nehalem's cache hierarchy.



To: mas_ who wrote (252849)6/5/2008 2:15:12 PM
From: Elmer PhudRespond to of 275872
 
Nehalem does have a slower cache structure than Penryn, why are you disputing something that actually has numbers on it ?!

A2 silicon is 1 clock slower. Do you know that it will stay that way?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News