Bill Todd (billtodd@metrocast.net) on 2/3/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>Peter Gerassimoff (pgerassi@ticon.net) on 2/3/03 wrote:
>
>...
>
>>FYI, Itanium3 (Madison) is only going to be 1.3GHz for the 6MB version and 1,2GHz
>>for the 3MB version.
>
>Have you told Intel yet? Their public statements are that Madison is going to clock at 1.5 GHz.
>
>YOur predicted SPEC scores are 25% too high. You should multiply
>>them by 80% or SPECint/fp 6MB: 1000/1720 and 3MB: 920/1600.
>>
>>You should also give Opteron up to 2.6 to 2.8GHz by end of this year on PC3200.
>
>Really? Do you have a reference for this? The highest speed I've seen AMD claim
>for any Hammer this year is 2.6 GHz ("2.4 and 2.6 GHz in Q4", IIRC), and since that
>one statement I haven't seen anything beyond 2.4 GHz in Q4 (suggesting that the
>previous statement included 2.6 GHz as a best-case possibility which later started to look overoptimistic).
>
>Furthermore, I've seen no claim that the on-chip memory controller can handle anything faster than PC2700 memory.
>
>>Also the SPEC scores you cite are for 32 bit mode only.
>
>That does seem to be the case, at least if one believes Freb Weber's quoted 1202
>for 32-bit SPECint at 2 GHz. Paul has expressed skepticism that Fred's other claim
>(that the score will improve by 15% - 20% in 64-bit mode) will pan out, because
>he thinks that it will be difficult to get the 64-bit (K8-specific) compilers up
>to the standard set by the 32-bit Intel compiler used to obtain the 1202 score.
>
>Adding 64 bit speed up
>>of 10%
>
>That may either be a bit conservative (based on Fred's statement) or a bit optimistic
>(based on current performance differences between the Intel compiler and, e.g., gcc).
>
>and PC3200 speed up of another 10% (conservative),
>
>Or imaginary (again: reference, please?).
>
>2.0GHz Opteron gets 1440/1400,
>>2.4GHz gets 1650/1600, 2.6GHz gets 1775/1700 and 2.8GHz gets 1900/1800.
>>
>>Given these Opteron has a good chance of beating Itanium3 in SPECfp
>
>Dream on. Opteron won't even beat McKinley when Madison releases, since Opteron
>will still be at 2 GHz (or at most 2.2 GHz if Madison's late and the faster Opteron
>is early). And unless you can substantiate your claim that Madison won't run at
>1.5 GHz, there's no reason to expect Opteron to be able to challenge it in SPECfp
>at anything less than about 3.2 - 3.4 GHz.
>
>and Itanium3
>>may fall behind many other 64 bit CPUs in SPECint
>
>"Many" others? Not Alpha (EV7 is a bit slower than McKinley so even EV79 in 2004
>likely won't quite catch Madison, and EV68 is only about 5% faster than McKinley
>so won't nearly match Madison). Certainly not SPARC or MIPS (they're much slower
>than McKinley). Not PA-RISC either (faster than SPARC and MIPS, but notably slower
>than McKinley). Even POWER4+ will have to bump up its clock rate significantly
>to match Madison (it probably can do so, but whether that will happen before Madison's release is unclear).
>
>as Opteron runs far ahead of all of them.
>
>That one I'll agree with.
>
>- bill
>
>