Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 19:28:43 01/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2004 at 22:03:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I don't believe I ever said he did. I simply suggested that this is a _good_ >time for AMD to exploit there _own_ name/processor, not exploit the fact that >they are Intel-compatible... That's exactly what they're doing with their more informed (i.e., workstation and server) customers. The fact that the regular Athlon 64s are the only ones with performance ratings should tell you something about the market. >I can only give _my_ results, as I _always_ do. For Crafty, for a couple of >other benchmarks I had the chance to run both on a quad-opteron (using 2 cpus >for comparison) and on a dual 3.06ghz xeon running linux, the opteron made it >no contest on _all_ the tests. Chess and ints (long ints of course). Floating >point. Etc... No kidding. But what Best Buy shopper is going to run 64-bit heavy code (obviously with Linux)? The product you want is Opteron--the one they're targeting at you, the workstation/server customer, with a new name (like you want) and no performance ratings (like you want). AMD is serving you a product on a silver platter, and you're still complaining. >>Are you kidding? There have been a tremendous number of news stories about the >>Opteron and it seems like every time I visit a hardware page I see an ad for >>Opteron or 64 bit AMD products in general. What would satisfy you? George W. >>mentioning Opteron in a State of the Union? > >News Smews. Who reads news when they are hunting a new computer? > >I get asked this question _all_ the time by students here, so there is >some confusion somewhere, even if it is not apparent where you are... I assume you mean computer science students, and if they're confused, imagine how Joe Blow feels? The Athlon product name is something he feels comfortable with, and he's comfortable with numbers after the chip name like 2.4, 2600+, and so forth. >>>Sure there is. The DX2 ran nowhere near 2x faster than the 486/25. It ran >>>faster in some cases, but memory was a bottleneck and the external cache >>>had to work to make it run faster at all, except for dinky programs. >> >>Huh. You're right. I suppose Intel should have gone with something like >>performance ratings. Maybe 486 40+? > >Maybe just "486/25 with a new model number?" What model numbers do you think we should assign the P4/800 with an internal clock of 2.4GHz, the P4/800 with an internal clock of 2.6GHz, the P4/800 with an internal clock of 2.8GHz, etc.? -Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.