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.

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

To: Gary Ng who wrote (57358)	5/5/1999 11:49:00 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 1572859

Re: "If you mean the SPEC mark, I have been asking for it again and again. Last I checked, AMD is a member of SPEC but they never ever submit one single report. Always wondering why ?" Take a wild guess... EP

To: Gary Ng who wrote (57358)	5/6/1999 12:25:00 AM
From: grok	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572859

Re: <AMD is a member of SPEC but they never ever submit one single report. Always wondering why ?> NexGen never produced specmarks because they didn't want to devote the resources to getting good numbers. You might think that it is straightforward to run specmarks. But if they just compiled and ran them the result would be very poor. Intel devotes huge resources to getting good spec results and so do all the RISC vendors. It is a matter of continuously tweaking their inhouse compiler until the numbers get good. Intel even went so far as to add a conditional move instruction to PII to get better specmarks. It is not used by apps since they wouldn't run on Pentium. AMD chips would look unfairly bad against Intel chips on specmarks but it is due to Intel's compiler not the chips. [My info is old but I don't think that anything's changed.]