Bill Todd (billtodd@metrocast.net) on 6/20/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Wang (dwang@realworldtech.com) on 6/19/03 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Bill Todd (billtodd@metrocast.net) on 6/19/03 wrote:
>>---------------------------

>>>So if I managed to get past all that gushing appreciation to the heart of the matter,
>>>it sounds as if your analysis predicts a SPECint_base score for the 1.5 GHz Madison
>>>of something like 1175 (assuming unchanged compiler technology). I just keep thinking
>>>back to Arcadian's glowing assurances that Madison would beat the bejazus out of
>>>Opteron and wondering if it can really be that low.
>>
>>Did Arcadian predict that Madison would beat the "bejezus" out of Opteron in SPECxxx?
>
>While it was difficult to pin him down to specific claims of SPECint superiority,
>he said "It's not exactly part of my job, but it's closely enough related so that
>I can get the skinny. I can't get into any details, but I feel pretty safe about
>Madison outperforming any competitive CPU in 2003, with the possible exception of
>Power5." Why he thought that POWER5 would be available this year I don't know,
>but the statement would certainly seem to include not only the Opterons available
>now but those available through year's end - and it was made in the specific *context*
>of a SPECint discussion (though honesty compels me to admit that my own projections
>for EV7's likely SPECint performance in another part of the same discussion turned
>out to have been very overoptimistic as well).

I think I recall the thread now.

If he just said "outperforming competitive CPU in 2003" (in SPECint), that appears to be a relatively mild statement rather than the more boastful "beat the bejazus out of" (in SPECint).

AMD's best SPECint numbers as reported on spec.org seems to be the 1095 base and 1170 peak numbers. Beating those numbers would also seem to be well within reach of the 1.5 GHz Madison, and that would support Arcadian's "modest claim" of "beating". At least until AMD could ship 2+ GHz Opterons and/or perhaps get better compiler support to pull those numbers up.