Comments

(newest first)

  • Kota | Wed, 30 Nov 2016 06:05:15 UTC

    Your research provide one with useful information for my study.So I want original data what is figure 9 "How power should have scaled".Would you send the data to this e-mail address?
    
  • Pete Stevenson | Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:05:29 UTC

    http://cpudb.stanford.edu/
  • ancient | Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:38:44 UTC

    I see an aritcle here related to such a cpu spec database, I can see no link linking me to said database ? or am I blind ?
  • Noshad | Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:39:01 UTC

    Hi There, Could you please let me know where is SPECfp2006 equivalent score is in the processor database? I'm refering to the value that is mentioned above in the Normalization of technology section you found for proecessors with other SPECs to find the equivalent in SPEC 2006(fp and int).
    
    Thanks,
    Noshad. 
  • Matt Slaybaugh | Mon, 03 Sep 2012 03:42:24 UTC

    @Prof. Neri,
    Thanks for noticing the missing figures. That has been corrected.
    Error notices can be sent to us directly at feedback@queue.acm.org
    
    Thanks,
    Matt
  • Giovanni Neri | Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:16:25 UTC

    Interesting but disputable paper: processor performance independent and rational evaluation is like the sex of angels or -  if you prefer -  a never never land.  But the attempt is valuable anyway. Two figures (14 and 15) are missing: why ? Regards
    
    Prof. Ing. Giovanni Neri 
    Professore Ordinario di Calcolatori Elettronici 
    Dipartimento di Elettronica Informatica e Sistemistica 
    Viale Risorgimento 2 
    40136 BOLOGNA 
    Italy 
    
  • Timbo | Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:47:28 UTC

    I enjoyed it. 
    Kudos to Stanford for putting this together.
  • gregzeng | Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:40:27 UTC

    CPU, then FPU.  Now software & operating system designers are also using multiple GPUs to bypass the limits of CPUs & FPUs.  Streaming, caching, predictive technologies ... so focussing on just CPU is almost meaningless now.
    
    Retired Chief Intelligence Officer (1984)
    Australian Capital Territory
  • Someone | Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:50:31 UTC

    Your graphs are all wrong. These things look like they were done by a novice in the computer field who doesn't know actual details and uses only posted information. Here's 2 errors I noticed which bug me the most:
    
    1. Power density over time, That graph is totally wrong! All of the sudden near 2006-2007 perf. per wat goes wayyyy up on the graph. (Or down depending on how one views it) The posted TDP's by intel and AMD for the last few years are incorrect and rely on thermal controls built into the CPU's. For instance, Intel lists 65W TDP for almost EVERY core 2 CPU. This is incorrect as it rely's on thermal management. The REAL TDP is no where near this low! Turn off speed step technology, (or whatever Inte/AMD wants to call it now) and you'll find it's a different ball game. 
    
    2. Your graphs/charts have exponential growth values, for example, Processor Frequency Scaling goes from 1000Mhz, to 3162Mhz, then jumps to 10,000Mhz. ??? I'm lost as to why your graphs do this, it completely distorts the data, and makes the graphs useless!
    
    And on one last note, charts like this should ONLY be done by someone who has been in the computer industry for many, many years and knows all the dirty little secrets of chip makers and can accurately graph the data. For example, I'm extremely anal about accuracy and have been in the IT industry "professionally" since '95 and know how to accurately measure cpu performance data (you didn't even mention FPU performance! ). Someone that's not just reading articles about it, but currently has 4-5 workstations at his geeky/nerdy hands that he's tinkering with at the same time at any given moment. I'm sorry, but that's the kind of person that needs to do things like this, not whoever posted these useless graphs. Sorry.
  • Norberto | Mon, 09 Apr 2012 04:07:39 UTC

    May be "other" it's the real name of Motorola
  • Branedy | Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:27:29 UTC

    I've done a quick peruse of  cpu-world.com and it is very incomplete, and biased upon INTEL processors. That would preclude it alone from being the definitive source of all things CPU. However it is well designed, and would make a great framework for the Standford data. It would only have to flushed out with a more complete set of CPU architectures to make it a more complete set! 
    
    JMO     
  • Gilbert Midonnet | Sat, 07 Apr 2012 23:51:40 UTC

    It seems as if the Stanford project was inspired by Ray Kurzweil and the concept of The Singularity. To that end the Stanford project is useful and differentiated from CPU World.
  • Mark A. Craig | Sat, 07 Apr 2012 21:01:03 UTC

    I can't even look at what Stanford is trying to do right now, but there have existed for years at least two online CPU "museums" that serve this goal. The one that readily springs easiest to mind - the one I've used most myself - is CPU-World (cpu-world.com). It has extensive coverage of all the major CPU lineages, including photos submitted by users, and even includes some non-CPU silicon. It seems to be largely the creation of one guy, Gennadiy Shvets, with eager collaboration from a lot of fellow enthusiasts, and there seems to be no profit motive to the site that I've ever noticed. He even thanks the most prolific contributors by name.
    
    WHY would Stanford feel it was necessary to "divide and conquer" this enthusiasm by creating an entirely new site and museum, rather than focusing the collective interest by contributing to or partnering with the one(s) that have already existed for many years? On the face of it this effort looks like either ignorance or pointless competition.
    
Leave this field empty

Post a Comment:

(Required)
(Required)
(Required - 4,000 character limit - HTML syntax is not allowed and will be removed)