Tweet
First off, I want to point to
" http://www.jc-news.com/pc/bbs/index.cgi?read=20228 ", which is a thread discussing the validity of the images and benchmarks and wcpuid info. The root of the thread seems to throw every possible thing he can find against HOCP's case.
Personally, this is my opinion:
The wcpuid results are valid. CPUID codes are like table keys -- they'll spout out a string of simple letters and it's up to the program to determine, usually by way of a look-up table, what the characters mean. So wcpuid, for instance, would have no idea what the codes for Tbird's L2 are unless AMD gave H.Oda classified information and gave him permission to make that information public. Which is unlikely.
The image ... for the most part, it looks legit. There have been some assertions that the die looks the wrong size. According to fact, Athlon die is 102sqmm, I believe. According to rumour, Spitfire die is 99sqmm. Given AMD's general cache density, this should mean that Tbird will take around 115-120sqmm of die area -- let's round it and say it's about fifteen to twenty percent larger than the Athlon die. This should be a noticable amount, but I've been too lazy to compare and contrast.
I have two problems with the report. Firstly, Kyle hyped himself as the carrier of the first Tbird benchmarks (or first alleged Tbird benchmarks -- I do not mean it in a bad way when I say "alleged", btw) out there. There was a possibly reliable double usenet post showing benchmarks of the Spitfire and Thunderbird alongside Coppermine and Coppermine-128. Whether these are real or not, Kyle should probably have shown some discretion here.
Though I did think it was funny on a level of genius the way Kyle presented the benchmarks -- a plea for secrecy and quiet, then a huge "AMD THUNDERBIRD BENCHMARKS" 3D image link. LOL!!!
The benchmarks. I've seen regular 750MHz Athlon scores beating these reported Thunderbird scores. I cannot see the Thunderbird holding only same clock for clock parity with Athlon, given what I know of the microarchitecture. So, in my opinion, one of a few things are true:
(A) The benchmarks are hoaxes - this is less likely, because the photograph does look pretty real, and Kyle is not in the habit of lying to people, and Kyle said that his source is trustworthy
(B) Kyle is suffering from Thresh Syndrome - That's right! The part benchmarked is an [em]early[/em] beta of the Tbird (maybe). Remember, Thresh's beta K7 benchmark preview (a preview which I enjoyed, I should note)? Very early silicon, and I was dismayed when the Thresh team pushed it as being a nearly production level revision in a followup article. So, maybe this is a Tbird silicon A1 with cache only operating at 64-bit width and stepped down to half clock rate. Who knows?
(C) Board BIOS Bad, Bro! - A fellow at my website's BBS was recently having a problem where his friend's Athlon-550 was performing like a Pentium 233. Yikes! What's up with that? Basically, he cleared the CMOS, and it started running like a mad dog (er, I mean, it started performing to spec). It's possible that the board on which the Tbird was tested does not have some necessary BIOS patch or driver enhancement, and this erodes the performance of the processor.
Er ... I can't think of any more. But you get the idea. I have no problem with Chris Tom's outright accusation of Kyle -- I mean, hey, that's often Kyle's own style! I am proud that Kyle tried to back up his report in a manner more fruitful than Thresh's's.
I'll try to do a comparative look at the die with a regular Athlon. But I think that the best way to find out is to wait for real Tbirds to come out, after which point we'll know what it should have looked like and how it should have performed.
-JC
PC News'n'Links
http://www.jc-news.com/pc
" http://www.jc-news.com/pc/bbs/index.cgi?read=20228 ", which is a thread discussing the validity of the images and benchmarks and wcpuid info. The root of the thread seems to throw every possible thing he can find against HOCP's case.
Personally, this is my opinion:
The wcpuid results are valid. CPUID codes are like table keys -- they'll spout out a string of simple letters and it's up to the program to determine, usually by way of a look-up table, what the characters mean. So wcpuid, for instance, would have no idea what the codes for Tbird's L2 are unless AMD gave H.Oda classified information and gave him permission to make that information public. Which is unlikely.
The image ... for the most part, it looks legit. There have been some assertions that the die looks the wrong size. According to fact, Athlon die is 102sqmm, I believe. According to rumour, Spitfire die is 99sqmm. Given AMD's general cache density, this should mean that Tbird will take around 115-120sqmm of die area -- let's round it and say it's about fifteen to twenty percent larger than the Athlon die. This should be a noticable amount, but I've been too lazy to compare and contrast.
I have two problems with the report. Firstly, Kyle hyped himself as the carrier of the first Tbird benchmarks (or first alleged Tbird benchmarks -- I do not mean it in a bad way when I say "alleged", btw) out there. There was a possibly reliable double usenet post showing benchmarks of the Spitfire and Thunderbird alongside Coppermine and Coppermine-128. Whether these are real or not, Kyle should probably have shown some discretion here.
Though I did think it was funny on a level of genius the way Kyle presented the benchmarks -- a plea for secrecy and quiet, then a huge "AMD THUNDERBIRD BENCHMARKS" 3D image link. LOL!!!
The benchmarks. I've seen regular 750MHz Athlon scores beating these reported Thunderbird scores. I cannot see the Thunderbird holding only same clock for clock parity with Athlon, given what I know of the microarchitecture. So, in my opinion, one of a few things are true:
(A) The benchmarks are hoaxes - this is less likely, because the photograph does look pretty real, and Kyle is not in the habit of lying to people, and Kyle said that his source is trustworthy
(B) Kyle is suffering from Thresh Syndrome - That's right! The part benchmarked is an [em]early[/em] beta of the Tbird (maybe). Remember, Thresh's beta K7 benchmark preview (a preview which I enjoyed, I should note)? Very early silicon, and I was dismayed when the Thresh team pushed it as being a nearly production level revision in a followup article. So, maybe this is a Tbird silicon A1 with cache only operating at 64-bit width and stepped down to half clock rate. Who knows?
(C) Board BIOS Bad, Bro! - A fellow at my website's BBS was recently having a problem where his friend's Athlon-550 was performing like a Pentium 233. Yikes! What's up with that? Basically, he cleared the CMOS, and it started running like a mad dog (er, I mean, it started performing to spec). It's possible that the board on which the Tbird was tested does not have some necessary BIOS patch or driver enhancement, and this erodes the performance of the processor.
Er ... I can't think of any more. But you get the idea. I have no problem with Chris Tom's outright accusation of Kyle -- I mean, hey, that's often Kyle's own style! I am proud that Kyle tried to back up his report in a manner more fruitful than Thresh's's.
I'll try to do a comparative look at the die with a regular Athlon. But I think that the best way to find out is to wait for real Tbirds to come out, after which point we'll know what it should have looked like and how it should have performed.
-JC
PC News'n'Links
http://www.jc-news.com/pc
Comment