Article: Escape From the Planet of x86
By: Bill Todd (billtodd.delete@this.metrocast.net), June 20, 2003 7:01 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
David Wang (dwang@realworldtech.com) on 6/20/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>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).
Indeed - my memory embellished the degree of emphasis (as I just noted in another post).
>
>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".
No, since they were made in the immediate context of Fred Weber's report of a SPECint score of 1202 for the 2 GHz part: that's the score Madison needs to beat for Arcadian's statement to stand (and with a bit of compiler advance it well may) - and even then it needs to remain standing for the next six months.
>At least until AMD could ship 2+ GHz Opterons and/or perhaps get better compiler support to pull those numbers up.
Exactly. And in this case advances in compilation would seem to be at least as applicable to Hammer 64-bit performance as they are so often claimed to be to getting EPIC up to speed.
- bill
---------------------------
>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).
Indeed - my memory embellished the degree of emphasis (as I just noted in another post).
>
>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".
No, since they were made in the immediate context of Fred Weber's report of a SPECint score of 1202 for the 2 GHz part: that's the score Madison needs to beat for Arcadian's statement to stand (and with a bit of compiler advance it well may) - and even then it needs to remain standing for the next six months.
>At least until AMD could ship 2+ GHz Opterons and/or perhaps get better compiler support to pull those numbers up.
Exactly. And in this case advances in compilation would seem to be at least as applicable to Hammer 64-bit performance as they are so often claimed to be to getting EPIC up to speed.
- bill
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
New Silicon Insider Article | David Kanter | 2003/06/17 03:39 PM |
Srockholm Syndrome | anonymous | 2003/06/17 03:50 PM |
Srockholm Syndrome | Nate Begeman | 2003/06/17 04:32 PM |
Srockholm Syndrome | anonymous | 2003/06/18 02:23 PM |
Srockholm Syndrome | Scott Robinson | 2003/06/20 08:25 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/17 09:51 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Alberto | 2003/06/18 07:29 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | José Javier Zarate | 2003/06/18 10:16 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/18 03:10 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Nate Begeman | 2003/06/18 03:25 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Tvar' | 2003/06/18 03:41 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Alberto | 2003/06/18 03:58 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Tvar' | 2003/06/18 04:04 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Alberto | 2003/06/18 04:24 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Tvar' | 2003/06/18 04:32 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/18 04:13 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Tvar' | 2003/06/18 04:23 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | mas | 2003/06/18 04:11 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Alberto | 2003/06/18 03:45 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/18 11:46 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | David Wang | 2003/06/19 12:13 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/19 01:14 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | David Wang | 2003/06/19 10:52 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/18 04:04 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/18 11:28 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/19 12:43 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Rob Young | 2003/06/19 10:23 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/19 04:53 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | David Wang | 2003/06/18 11:29 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/19 12:03 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | José Javier Zarate | 2003/06/19 05:33 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | mas | 2003/06/19 06:37 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/19 04:40 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | David Wang | 2003/06/19 05:25 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/19 06:00 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Alberto | 2003/06/19 06:29 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Speedy | 2003/06/19 06:48 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Alberto | 2003/06/20 04:57 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | David Wang | 2003/06/19 06:52 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/19 09:00 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Anonymous | 2003/06/20 02:20 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/20 09:11 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Anonymous | 2003/06/22 04:48 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/22 05:49 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Vincent Diepeveen | 2003/06/22 06:25 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | José Javier Zarate | 2003/06/22 07:55 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Anonymous | 2003/06/23 09:59 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/19 07:53 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/19 08:53 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | David Wang | 2003/06/19 09:08 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/20 02:28 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | David Wang | 2003/06/20 11:35 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/20 12:29 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/20 07:10 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Marc M. | 2003/06/21 06:06 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/21 12:07 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/20 07:01 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | David Wang | 2003/06/20 07:52 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/20 08:53 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | David Wang | 2003/06/20 09:14 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Vincent Diepeveen | 2003/06/20 09:52 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Marc M. | 2003/06/21 08:16 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Vincent Diepeveen | 2003/06/22 05:24 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Singh, S.R. | 2003/06/21 04:39 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | David Wang | 2003/06/21 09:10 AM |
IPF Compilers | Nate Begeman | 2003/06/21 10:10 AM |
IPF Compilers | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/21 10:45 AM |
Use ILP to extract more ILP | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/20 11:48 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/20 09:06 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Singh, S.R. | 2003/06/20 10:41 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | David Kanter | 2003/06/21 04:34 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/22 03:22 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bill Todd | 2003/06/20 06:52 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Marc M. | 2003/06/21 08:54 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Daniel Gustafsson | 2003/06/19 12:12 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/20 03:20 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Bryan Gregory | 2003/06/20 02:14 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | mas | 2003/06/20 02:43 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/25 11:29 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | José Javier Zarate | 2003/06/25 11:43 AM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Paul DeMone | 2003/06/25 11:52 AM |
lol, amazing coincidence :-) (NT) | mas | 2003/06/25 04:15 PM |
New Silicon Insider Article | Yoav | 2015/04/01 04:43 AM |