By: tecate (tecate.delete@this.devil.com), February 5, 2003 4:09 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Why don't you at least tell them you are a guy? I their posts and they are always referring to you as a woman :)
I, like Mr. Zarate, wonder why you bother, although I do like that most of your posts are one liners.
regards,
kate
waitressInGaza (beenthere@donethat.com) on 2/5/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>José Javier Zarate (jzarate@unav.es) on 2/5/03 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Dear Mrs. WIG
>>
>>I read frequently your posts at Ace's. Why do you keep fighting so many so cleraly
>>biased people that add so little to knowledge (there are some biased people that
>>adds a lot to knowledge and understanding of a given technology)
>
>well call it a crusade to call a spade a spade but in this case i really did want
>to see the links Peter derives his info from. from what i see he takes all his
>data from one digitimes article. thanks for the point of view =)
>
>
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>waitressInGaza (beenthere@donethat.com) on 2/3/03 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
I, like Mr. Zarate, wonder why you bother, although I do like that most of your posts are one liners.
regards,
kate
waitressInGaza (beenthere@donethat.com) on 2/5/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>José Javier Zarate (jzarate@unav.es) on 2/5/03 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Dear Mrs. WIG
>>
>>I read frequently your posts at Ace's. Why do you keep fighting so many so cleraly
>>biased people that add so little to knowledge (there are some biased people that
>>adds a lot to knowledge and understanding of a given technology)
>
>well call it a crusade to call a spade a spade but in this case i really did want
>to see the links Peter derives his info from. from what i see he takes all his
>data from one digitimes article. thanks for the point of view =)
>
>
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>waitressInGaza (beenthere@donethat.com) on 2/3/03 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
New Article Available | David Kanter | 2003/02/02 01:44 AM |
Excellent Article, Paul (NT) | Arcadian | 2003/02/02 03:57 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/02 06:53 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/02 11:38 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/02 11:53 PM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Anonymous | 2003/02/03 06:03 AM |
Yikes! Slashdotted! | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 08:13 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Peter Gerassimoff | 2003/02/03 12:38 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Bill Todd | 2003/02/03 02:18 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 09:08 AM |
Opteron SPEC Performance | Arcadian | 2003/02/03 11:15 AM |
Opteron SPEC Performance | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 11:18 AM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/03 12:15 PM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/05 08:23 AM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/05 01:50 PM |
i want to see those links pls!! (NT) | tecate | 2003/02/05 04:09 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/05 05:36 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | Dean Kent | 2003/02/05 06:03 PM |
gender should be irrelevant | tecate | 2003/02/05 08:27 PM |
well it is all about your viewpoint | waitressInGaza | 2003/02/05 11:44 PM |
well it is all about your viewpoint | doriangrey | 2003/02/06 11:39 PM |
Please be a girl. :p | NIKOLAS | 2003/02/06 05:28 AM |
FYI, Paul: | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 07:43 AM |
larger cache for POWER4+? | Anil Maliyekkel | 2003/02/03 04:08 AM |
larger cache for POWER4+? | Thu Nguyen | 2003/02/03 05:35 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 06:41 AM |
well written indeed | tecate | 2003/02/03 08:05 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 08:12 AM |
well written indeed | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 08:15 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 11:04 AM |
well written indeed | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 11:58 AM |
about Jim Keller | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 12:50 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/03 01:22 PM |
Nope but will now (NT) | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 01:50 PM |
patent info... | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 01:52 PM |
about the article... | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 03:49 PM |
Er, I just have to point something out. | Anonymous | 2003/02/04 09:19 PM |
Next time check the date. | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/05 12:10 AM |
Yes, I know it was written in 2000. | Anonymous | 2003/02/05 11:42 AM |
Yes, I know it was written in 2000. | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/05 12:20 PM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/09 12:09 PM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/09 12:40 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/09 01:00 PM |
about Jim Keller | David Wang | 2003/02/09 01:18 PM |
about Jim Keller | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/09 02:47 PM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/10 10:11 AM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/10 11:06 AM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/11 05:53 PM |
about Jim Keller | Dean Kent | 2003/02/11 08:52 PM |
about Jim Keller | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/12 10:06 AM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 03:19 PM |
about Jim Keller | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/11 10:35 PM |
about Jim Keller | David Kanter | 2003/02/11 11:24 PM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/12 09:54 AM |
Taxation systems | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 06:23 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Bellusco | 2003/02/13 09:53 AM |
Taxation systems | Interested in Illinois | 2003/02/13 02:47 PM |
Taxation systems | Aleajdnro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/13 04:56 PM |
Taxation systems | Jouni Osmala | 2003/02/14 07:03 AM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro G. Belluscio | 2003/02/14 05:13 PM |
Taxation systems | David Kanter | 2003/02/14 11:18 PM |
Taxation systems | Alejandro Belluscio | 2003/02/15 07:36 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 01:40 PM |
E8870 Chipset | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/04 02:19 PM |
E8870 Chipset | Arcadian | 2003/02/05 12:54 AM |
E8870 Chipset | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/05 08:13 AM |
E8870 Chipset | Arcadian | 2003/02/05 11:49 AM |
Minor question | José Javier Zarate | 2003/02/04 02:24 PM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 08:18 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 08:36 AM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 09:33 AM |
hear hear... | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 11:16 AM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/03 02:02 PM |
well written indeed | Dean Kent | 2003/02/03 03:48 PM |
well written indeed | hobold | 2003/02/04 12:56 PM |
well written indeed | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 09:19 AM |
BTW Paul, it was VERY well written... BUT... =) | Marc M. | 2003/02/03 09:25 AM |
Ditto (NT) | William L. | 2003/02/10 07:28 PM |
New Article Available | JS | 2003/02/05 01:09 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Richard Stacpoole | 2003/02/06 04:46 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Paul DeMone | 2003/02/06 09:47 AM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | doriangrey | 2003/02/06 11:41 PM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | William L. | 2003/02/10 07:34 PM |
Changes in MPU design methodologies? | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/10 09:34 PM |
Watch this | Singh, S.R. | 2003/02/10 09:42 PM |
excellent article, just a nit or two | mulp | 2003/02/15 11:11 PM |