Intel Corp (INTC)

[chipguy]

So what does it mean...
When they ship a 2.0Ghz product, but publish benchmarks on a 2.5Ghz product... and compare them to the competitors 2.33Ghz product... when the competitor has been shipping a 3.0Ghz product for a while already?

It means AMD is a desperate corned animal with nothing to
lose by such sleazy tactics.

BTW, this is an interesting read:

http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=82684&threadid=82680&room....

Don't agree with anandtech's specjbb2005 results

Two flaws IMHO
1) They used an old version of the Sun JVM, from before Sun adopted Intel HW. That old version contains optimizations for AMD but not for Intel. A more recent Sun JVM (1.6.0_02) or a recent version of JRockit would have resulted in much better Xeon scores. While they had a valid reason for going with 1.5.0_08 (be able to compare with old results) they should have mentioned this fact in the article.

2) They worked around the main AMD weakness (poor performance if accessing non-local memory) by running with several JVM instances, each affinitized to a NUMA node. Xeon does benefit from multiple instances too, but not nearly as much as AMD does. For completeness, they should have run in a single-JVM config too, or without using numactl.

-- Henrik


Somewhere else I read that this test was run with prefetch
turned off. IIRC a while back AMD submitted SPECJBB2005
results for Conroe with prefetching turned off.

I wonder if AMD provided some "technical assistance" to
Anandtech's Barc review?