Frequency is different for starters

Article: Sizing up the Super Heavyweights
By: IntelUser2000 (, October 27, 2004 8:45 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Paul DeMone ( on 10/27/04 wrote:
>IntelUser ( on 10/27/04 wrote:
>>"Also the new estimate takes
>>into account the much coarser scale of multithreading
>>in Montecito than was assumed in the earlier article.
>>This greatly limits its potential to improve throughput
>>of SPECrate type workloads."
>>Really? That much? I am not that technical, just an interested person. CMT affects
>>it so much that spec rate goes from nearly 4x to +80%? Isn't it then much better
>>to leave CMT then? 580mm2 with 80% faster than previous generation? That's it?
>You are not making any sense at all. The earlier article
>has a SPECint_rate2k estimate for 2P at 2.5 Ghz while
>you refer to an estimate for 4P at 2.2 GHz in the newer
>article. If you aren't even going to make an effort at
>comprehension then there isn't any point in responding
>to any more of your posts.

Okay, okay I guess I confused 2 processors with 2 cores(since Montecito is dual-core and Power 5 is dual-core I automatically assumed they are dual-core scores). So I take it as you mean when it says 38 for specfp rate and 36 for specint for Opteron CMP it means for the dual-socket dual-core performance.

"This greatly limits its potential to improve throughput
of SPECrate type workloads." Isn't SPECrate measuring performance on multi-threaded applications? Isn't CMT supposed to help increase performance on SPECrate type of applications? No wait, you were expecting that Montecito was using SMT rather than CMT and thus you came with the quote above.

Okay then Montecito is pretty good. What will be amazing(and somewhat disappointing) when Montecito and the desktop dual-core processors are released, since the speedgap in terms of MHz will be much closer than now with Madison and Prescott, or even Madison and Opteron when Montecito does come at 2.5GHz. Too bad though Dual-core successor to Prescott will have to run at 3.2GHz max at introduction. Hopefully Intel will take out the extra pipelines they added to the Prescott in the dual-core version since its no longer needed, even though its not that easy.
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
New Silicon Insider ArticleDavid Kanter2004/10/11 05:43 AM
  Good read. Thanks again Paul. (NT)Michael Menietti2004/10/11 06:36 AM
  New Silicon Insider ArticleSingh, S.R.2004/10/11 06:44 AM
    New Silicon Insider ArticlePaul DeMone2004/10/11 06:55 AM
  New Silicon Insider Articletecate2004/10/11 09:52 AM
  core size: x86 vs IPFanonymous2004/10/11 11:43 AM
    Good Question. (NT)Chuck2004/10/12 08:22 AM
    core size: x86 vs IPFMichael S2004/10/12 10:53 AM
    K8 core size 52mm^2IlleglWpns2004/10/12 12:15 PM
    core size: x86 vs IPFPaul DeMone2004/10/12 01:10 PM
  New Silicon Insider ArticleJS2004/10/13 02:42 AM
  New Silicon Insider Articlemas2004/10/16 09:07 AM
  New Silicon Insider ArticleAnonymous42004/10/16 10:39 PM
    New Silicon Insider ArticlePaul DeMone2004/10/17 06:58 AM
  New Silicon Insider ArticleArun Ramakrishnan2004/10/22 08:48 AM
    New Silicon Insider ArticlePaul DeMone2004/10/22 10:38 AM
      New Silicon Insider ArticleDavid Kanter2004/10/22 11:04 PM
        New Silicon Insider ArticlePaul DeMone2004/10/23 06:02 AM
        New Silicon Insider ArticleArun Ramakrishnan2004/10/23 01:47 PM
      New Silicon Insider ArticleMichael S2004/10/23 11:38 AM
        New Silicon Insider ArticlePaul DeMone2004/10/23 01:10 PM
          New Silicon Insider ArticleMichael S2004/10/23 01:40 PM
  Do I see a flaw here?IntelUser20002004/10/27 05:43 PM
    Frequency is different for startersPaul DeMone2004/10/27 06:05 PM
      Frequency is different for startersIntelUser2004/10/27 06:28 PM
        Frequency is different for startersPaul DeMone2004/10/27 07:49 PM
          Frequency is different for startersIntelUser20002004/10/27 08:45 PM
  New Silicon Insider ArticleIntelUser20002004/11/01 10:13 AM
    New Silicon Insider Articleanonymous2004/11/02 09:46 AM
      New Silicon Insider ArticleChuck2004/11/02 10:33 AM
        New Silicon Insider ArticleSingh, S.R.2004/11/02 12:21 PM
          New Silicon Insider ArticleJosé Javier Zarate2004/11/02 03:14 PM
            New Silicon Insider ArticleSingh, S.R.2004/11/02 07:47 PM
        New Silicon Insider Articleanonymous2004/11/03 03:04 PM
          New Silicon Insider Articleanonymous2004/11/03 03:07 PM
  New Silicon Insider ArticleIntelUser20002004/11/04 11:30 AM
    New Silicon Insider ArticleIntelUser20002004/11/04 09:38 PM
      New Silicon Insider ArticleDavid Kanter2004/11/05 08:44 AM
        New Silicon Insider ArticleIntelUser20002004/11/08 08:23 PM
Reply to this Topic
Body: No Text
How do you spell avocado?