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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (44063)12/26/1998 8:44:00 PM
From: Ali Chen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573044
 
<Funny..what you say are nothing but facts, instead of the dumb opinions that they truly are.>
Model CPU Drive Disk Winmark
-----------------------------------------------
Dell XPS R450 P-II IBM DTTA-371010 3570
GTW G6-450 P-II IBM DTTA-371440 2460
-----------------------------------------------
If you call 2460kb/s vs. 3570 kb/s for the
same chipset, CPU, and disk drive as "dumb
opinions that they truly are", all my name
calling are justified and you need to
go back to 2 or 3 grade and learn the
distinction between "fact" and "opinion".

<Funny how you have to keep reminding me
how so mature you are by using the kind
of remarks that I outgrew back in high school.>
I never attended an American high school,
and I am learning these remarks from other,
much younger sources, just to keep up
with your way of discussion. Sorry if
some of my remarks are a bit off the
line, I am trying to do my best :)

<Meanwhile, you offer no logical proof that
Xeon's full-speed L2 cache is no better than
Pentium II's half-speed L2 cache>
I do not need to proof anything logically.
For the market we are concerned here, the
common benchmarks are the proof. If you
want some logical explanation, I could
speculate that, for a modern superscalar
superpipelined microprocessor, if the
data delivery time (latency+bandwith) drops
below certain limit (I would suspect the
length of pipeline is the characteristic
factor), furhther increase in L2 speed
does not matter - there is enough stuff
wating to be executed, and it shadows the
processor's bubble due to L1 miss. Is
this comprehendable for you?

<..benchmarks which aren't really designed to
do the things that a Xeon was meant to do.>
I also could care less of what Xeon is meant
to do on not to do. We are talking about
the market segment of personal computing.
The benchmarks are designed for applications,
and not meant for a certain processor.
For THIS SORT OF APPLICATIONS the full-speed
Xeon cache is waste of money. The tres-biffoons
(and you) are desperately trying to justify
the "full-speed" cache. You are trying
to compare 128k "full-speed" Celeron with
512k half-speed P-II and derive from this
"advantages" of a full-speed L2. The Xeon
argument has been thrown for the same reason -
to talk down K6-3 and upcoming K7 L2 design.
(Actually, by lowering the expectations you
are doing a good job for AMD stock.)
However, there
is another explanation of why all your three
processors behave so equally: faster or bigger
L2 does not matter much with a non-blocking
system bus! Apparently you still don't get it.

<Then you even stick in a few outlandish
statements like "K7 is coming with up to
8MB of VERY AFFORDABLE L2 off-the-shelf
cache" and "No matter how much money Intel
has, industry will resist Intel's strategy
and favor AMD's" and try to pass them off
as facts.>
Again here you are having problems with
distinction between facts and opinions.
Your problem. Be happy that I warned you...

<Please, Ali Babble, please show me those
benchmarks showing that K7 servers are
going to be faster than Xeon servers.>
IMO, these servers may not be faster
on clock-per-clock basis, but I have
some gut feeling that K7 servers
will be much cheaper and run at much
higher frequencies. Bookmark this.

<Guess Mary Clueny was right in calling
you the "insufferable Ali Chen.">
What does this mean?
I would appreciate the reference. She
is funny sometimes.