AMD Hammer Benchmarks

[Saem]

Here is an interesting tidbit. According to X-bitlabs AMD will be ranking there Barton AXP 2800+, because of the added 256KB L2 cache, otherwise the processor will remain the same. All of a sudden the Hammer 3400+ seems like quite the fairy tale.

What's really sad is the fact that this started out as an open effort to be create a benchmark suite that would allow one to judge x86 MPU, which has then turned into a retarded 66MHz = 100 points formula and then now it seems it's worse than Cyrix.

As for whether the new rating is true, X-bit labs from my understanding has been very accurate in it's rumour/inside information department.

 

[BenM]

I think you're right on the performance ratings, Saem. While there should be a standardized benchmark suite, AMD doesn't seem to be sticking to it if they do list the Barton cores that high.

Personally, I stopped listening to Xbit when they published that 3dfx was coming out with VSA-101, and a when a few other predictions were wrong. They're like the Inquirer, but their English is worse than most of Mike Mageek's crew.

 

[Saem]

LoL. Well that was a long time ago. They seem to have improved. Oh well. Then again I don't want to proport one rumour mill over the other.

 

[pascal]

Some speculations about hammer pipeline improvments: http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2002_06_24_Hammers_Two_Extra_PipelineStages.html

 

[Nexiss]

Here is an interesting tidbit. According to X-bitlabs AMD will be ranking there Barton AXP 2800+, because of the added 256KB L2 cache, otherwise the processor will remain the same. All of a sudden the Hammer 3400+ seems like quite the fairy tale.

What's really sad is the fact that this started out as an open effort to be create a benchmark suite that would allow one to judge x86 MPU, which has then turned into a retarded 66MHz = 100 points formula and then now it seems it's worse than Cyrix.

As for whether the new rating is true, X-bit labs from my understanding has been very accurate in it's rumour/inside information department.

Frankly, I never took the PR ratings as any sort of serious means of comparing performance or as an indication of benchmarking or whatnot. It seemed clear from the beginning that it was just AMD trying to confuse the average consumer who equates MHz with performance. Which makes sense to me (I don't have a problem with it) considering Intel's clock speed advantage.