Quote Originally Posted by red View Post
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...0528-01175.txt
Intel's new result already beats AMD's paper result if you don't care for clock for clock comparison. Of course to say that 2.4GHz isn't good enough is to assume that they can't boost spec scores +8.3%, which is reasonably attainable with different configurations (unless AMD really optimized for the 2.6Ghz scores).
Well... of course I don't care for clock-for-clock comparison... that's just silly.

AMD projected 102 for 2.6GHz. Assuming exact scaling with frequency, they'd get 94 with a 2.4GHz Barc...which means 3GHz Clovertown would be nearly 13% faster on 2P int_rate. Also much faster on int and faster on fp, with fp_rate left for Barc.

One thing is unclear: is the Intel 106 result using Seaburg? Or Blackford? If Blackford, there is room for improvement with Seaburg.