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 (252988)6/6/2008 10:16:00 PM
From: eracerRespond to of 275872
 
Re: This detail isn't trivial.

Yes, it is trivial. Clock-for-clock Nehalem might loose to Penryn by small percentage in a very limited number of benchmarks. Clock-for-clock Nehalem will win by a large margin in many benchmarks, especially in server and other multi-threaded apps.

If you want to argue that Shanghai is going to greatly improve performance over Barcelona due to HT3.0, larger L3 cache and higher clock speeds, go right ahead.



To: mas_ who wrote (252988)6/7/2008 11:00:20 PM
From: graphicsguruRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 275872
 
Mas: If Nehalem goes backward a bit . . .

Can you show us your assumptions on hit rate that make you
confident that Nehalem's faster L2 doesn't more than compensate
for its slightly slower L1 and smaller L2?

A faster L2 is a big deal. I'm inclined to believe that Intel had a
whole lot of data to base their choice on. Do you think they
just ignored Penryn's design and experience when they designed
the Nehalem memory system?


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