Aceshardware

mas · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 78

Paul DeMone wrote:

caboosemoose wrote:

dougSF30 wrote:

More baloney. Nehalem, per Intel, will feature a bigger jump in performance over Penryn than Core2 provided over Netburst.

Hummm. That is not really what I understood when I spoke with the chief Nehalem architect a few weeks ago, though I must admit he wasn't exactly laying it all out for me. It's largely the same three-issue core as far as I understand.

Given Core 2 Duo is a four issue core the odds are you don't
understand very well.

LOL that's an understatement, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ;-)

DUCK of DEATH · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 104

mas wrote:

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

caboosemoose wrote:

One other thing. Why is everybody arguing with this "Mas" lunatic? I think the debate would be more productive if we stick to reality and discuss what the absence of Bulldozer from the new roadmaps means.

It is just fun to watch this arch FUDSTER squirm as his inane and inept predictions come crumbling around him.

I suppose it is a bit like pulling the wings off a retarded fly. LOL!!!

All that shows is what a sick f**k you are.

Just because I call you to account for your irrational and highly illogical predictions?

Tsk, Tsk, eh I mean Tick, Tock. LOL!!!!

DUCK of DEATH · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 104

mas wrote:

Paul DeMone wrote:

caboosemoose wrote:

dougSF30 wrote:

More baloney. Nehalem, per Intel, will feature a bigger jump in performance over Penryn than Core2 provided over Netburst.

Hummm. That is not really what I understood when I spoke with the chief Nehalem architect a few weeks ago, though I must admit he wasn't exactly laying it all out for me. It's largely the same three-issue core as far as I understand.

Given Core 2 Duo is a four issue core the odds are you don't
understand very well.

LOL that's an understatement, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ;-)

As your ludicrous AMD boosting over the paper launched Barcelona and future delayed and sure to be underwhelming AMD products, proves.

mas · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 78

dougSF30 wrote:

As for arguing with mas, it is a bad habit, I admit, but I like to get him on the record with as many outrageous predictions as possible, just for future amusement's sake.

LOL, like I said before the only one making amusing outrageous wrong predictions is you. Here's what you said about IPF in 2004 !

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=3113093

Prediction: IPF leveling off and then contracting.

Doug

ROFL, you couldn't be more useless if you tried Doug ;-).

mas · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 78

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

mas wrote:

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

caboosemoose wrote:

One other thing. Why is everybody arguing with this "Mas" lunatic? I think the debate would be more productive if we stick to reality and discuss what the absence of Bulldozer from the new roadmaps means.

It is just fun to watch this arch FUDSTER squirm as his inane and inept predictions come crumbling around him.

I suppose it is a bit like pulling the wings off a retarded fly. LOL!!!

All that shows is what a sick f**k you are.

Just because I call you to account for your irrational and highly illogical predictions?

Tsk, Tsk, eh I mean Tick, Tock. LOL!!!!

Err no, more what you do with flies although you obviously consider that normal behaviour.

mas · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 78

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

mas wrote:

Paul DeMone wrote:

caboosemoose wrote:

dougSF30 wrote:

More baloney. Nehalem, per Intel, will feature a bigger jump in performance over Penryn than Core2 provided over Netburst.

Hummm. That is not really what I understood when I spoke with the chief Nehalem architect a few weeks ago, though I must admit he wasn't exactly laying it all out for me. It's largely the same three-issue core as far as I understand.

Given Core 2 Duo is a four issue core the odds are you don't
understand very well.

LOL that's an understatement, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ;-)

As your ludicrous AMD boosting over the paper launched Barcelona and future delayed and sure to be underwhelming AMD products, proves.

You really are so dumb as to not be able to distinguish architectural comparisons with specific company cheering which is all your tiny mind is capable of, tick tock indeed !

dougSF30 · Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 52

mas wrote:

dougSF30 wrote:

As for arguing with mas, it is a bad habit, I admit, but I like to get him on the record with as many outrageous predictions as possible, just for future amusement's sake.

ROFL, you couldn't be more useless if you tried ;-).

mas, you've been wrong about almost everything for the past year and a half. C2D impact on marketshare, AMD's financial fortunes, AMD's 65nm timetable, AMD's 65nm K8 clockspeeds, Barcelona's timetable, Barcelona's launch frequencies, Barcelona's relative performance, and the list goes on...

Yet you proclaim "I was 100% correct" every time someone brings up any of these topics.

You're a clown. Just like Hector. And Mario. And Randy. And Bob. And Dirk.

dougSF30 · Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 52

mas wrote:

You really are so dumb as to not be able to distinguish architectural comparisons with specific company cheering which is all your tiny mind is capable of, tick tock indeed !

Says the IT lackey for a Fashion company with a physics degree from a second-rate institution...

DUCK of DEATH · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 104

mas wrote:

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

mas wrote:

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

caboosemoose wrote:

One other thing. Why is everybody arguing with this "Mas" lunatic? I think the debate would be more productive if we stick to reality and discuss what the absence of Bulldozer from the new roadmaps means.

It is just fun to watch this arch FUDSTER squirm as his inane and inept predictions come crumbling around him.

I suppose it is a bit like pulling the wings off a retarded fly. LOL!!!

All that shows is what a sick f**k you are.

Just because I call you to account for your irrational and highly illogical predictions?

Tsk, Tsk, eh I mean Tick, Tock. LOL!!!!

Err no, more what you do with flies although you obviously consider that normal behaviour.

I guess you are too stupid to understand the difference between literal and figurative.

Can't say I am too surprised considering the idiotic stance you not only adopted on Barcelona but continue to defend and promote.

DUCK of DEATH · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 104

mas wrote:

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

mas wrote:

Paul DeMone wrote:

caboosemoose wrote:

dougSF30 wrote:

More baloney. Nehalem, per Intel, will feature a bigger jump in performance over Penryn than Core2 provided over Netburst.

Hummm. That is not really what I understood when I spoke with the chief Nehalem architect a few weeks ago, though I must admit he wasn't exactly laying it all out for me. It's largely the same three-issue core as far as I understand.

Given Core 2 Duo is a four issue core the odds are you don't
understand very well.

LOL that's an understatement, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ;-)

As your ludicrous AMD boosting over the paper launched Barcelona and future delayed and sure to be underwhelming AMD products, proves.

You really are so dumb as to not be able to distinguish architectural comparisons with specific company cheering which is all your tiny mind is capable of, tick tock indeed !

What is truly stupid is your inability to grasp how Nehalem's architecture does more for Intel, than Shanghai does for AMD.

You better get some back up from your mentors at AMDZone.com or whatever sickening fanboy forum you "learnt" all your muddled understanding about computers from.

mas · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 78

dougSF30 wrote:

mas wrote:

dougSF30 wrote:

As for arguing with mas, it is a bad habit, I admit, but I like to get him on the record with as many outrageous predictions as possible, just for future amusement's sake.

ROFL, you couldn't be more useless if you tried ;-).

mas, you've been wrong about almost everything for the past year and a half. C2D impact on marketshare, AMD's financial fortunes, AMD's 65nm timetable, AMD's 65nm K8 clockspeeds, Barcelona's timetable, Barcelona's launch frequencies, Barcelona's relative performance, and the list goes on...

Yet you proclaim "I was 100% correct" every time someone brings up any of these topics.

You're a clown. Just like Hector. And Mario. And Randy. And Bob. And Dirk.

You're the only clown here and I have dug up all the posts to prove it and what fun it was LOL, I do so enjoy exposing you for the complete idiot and fool you continually are ;-)

dkanter · Joined: 20 Sep 2007 Posts: 59

Jesus fucking christ, could you guys try to maintain some modest level of decorum here?

I'll settle a bit of this argument right now...

Nehalem is going to have higher single threaded performance than Harpertown/Clovertown.

Nehalem is a 4 issue core, with a 3 level cache hierarchy.

DK

mas · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 78

dkanter wrote:

I'll settle a bit of this argument right now...

Nehalem is going to have higher single threaded performance than Harpertown/Clovertown.

Nehalem is a 4 issue core, with a 3 level cache hierarchy.

DK

As long as it's not cache bound and thanks for confirming what I read elsewhere about the L3. As to the level of discussion blame dougy and ducky, the 2 jeering trolling factless fanbois who do insist on slagging me off on every thread they post on no matter how thinly related it is to the subject at hand lol ;-)

dougSF30 · Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 52

dkanter wrote:

Jesus fucking christ, could you guys try to maintain some modest level of decorum here?

I'll settle a bit of this argument right now...

Nehalem is going to have higher single threaded performance than Harpertown/Clovertown.

Nehalem is a 4 issue core, with a 3 level cache hierarchy.

DK

The irony of your first request is amusing. :)

Who told you that all Nehalem parts (not just EX-Beckton, the 8-core Xeon MP) would have 3 levels of cache?

The remaining parts all appear to have 2 levels. The die photo also appeared to confirm this.

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2007/1128/kaigai403_05.pdf

mas · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 78

dougSF30 wrote:

dkanter wrote:

Jesus fucking christ, could you guys try to maintain some modest level of decorum here?

I'll settle a bit of this argument right now...

Nehalem is going to have higher single threaded performance than Harpertown/Clovertown.

Nehalem is a 4 issue core, with a 3 level cache hierarchy.

DK

The irony of your first request is amusing. :)

Who told you that all Nehalem parts (not just EX-Beckton, the 8-core Xeon MP) would have 3 levels of cache?

The remaining parts all appear to have 2 levels. The die photo also appeared to confirm this.

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2007/1128/kaigai403_05.pdf

LOL, they aren't die photos you clown !