2.5GHZ K10 crushes 3GHZ Intel 45nm quad like a bug in J2EE
Even Anand's the Intel kisser had to admit it.
Intel retards forced this blog to enable moderation of comments -- Patty is laughing, while his mother is disappointed about his education level. I have to do more work, but civilization requires the rule of wisdom -- Intelers are so primitive. That silly dude kept posting, all I did was two mouse clicks: "Check All" --"Delete".
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 11/28/2007 01:01:00 AM
48 Comments:
STFU Boner.
Perhaps it is time to reintroduce a moderated from for this blog.
Sharikou perhaps you should try to read the whole article. i persume that it is the 11% in SPECjbb (Sun) is what you consider Crushing the intel cpu?ks it is faster than intel but crushes no way.
The CPU in general dont perform to good but in some benchmar
Hey Sharikou: Nehalem at 4Ghz crushes anything AMD will make for the next 2 years!
What? You are going to say that since Nehalem isn't even out yet that this is an unfair claim? Well in that case, I'm sure you have no problems retracting all of your claims involving vaporware CPUs that AMD will not sell you. I'm so certain that all the AMD fanboys on this blog are 100% unbiased.... hahahaha.
I think you guys should just have a cage match and leave CPUs out of it. It does seem like personal problems are directing most of the comments here.
Yes, K10 is faster in "a variety of workloads" and Penryn the same.
Johan did do the most thorough review. It shows where the K10 improvements work best and worst.
BONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERv
BONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERv
BONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERvBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERBONERv
OLPC SUED FOR ILLEGAL USE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=796745
Lagos Analysis Corp. (LANCOR) Files Lawsuit Against Nicholas Negroponte and OLPC Association for Patent Infringement. Negroponte's OLPC Accused of Unauthorized Use of LANCOR's Multilingual Keyboard Technology Invention in XO Laptops
Highlighted Links
LANCOR Technologies
KONYIN Keyboards
BOSTON, MA--(Marketwire - November 27, 2007) - Lagos Analysis Corporation, a United States-based Nigerian-owned company with a subsidiary called LANCOR Management Limited, in Nigeria (LANCOR) announces today that it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division holding at Ikoyi, Lagos, Nigeria against Nicholas Negroponte, One Laptop Per Child Association (OLPC) and its enablers in Nigeria.
The patent infringement lawsuit was filed on November 22nd, 2007 as a result of OLPC's willful infringement of LANCOR's Nigeria Registered Design Patent # RD8489 and illegal reverse engineering of its keyboard driver source codes for use in the XO Laptops.
LANCOR is seeking substantial damages as well as a permanent injunction to prevent OLPC from continuing to unlawfully manufacture, sell, distribute or offer for sale the XO Laptop, and any other products infringing on the RD8489 and using the illegally acquired keyboard driver source codes.
LANCOR is a pioneer in the development of advanced physical multilingual keyboard technology using four shift keys and characters with combining properties to allow for direct access typing of accents, symbols and diacritical marks during regular typing. LANCOR's technology named Shift2 keyboard technology has been used to create a new class of region specific based keyboards called KONYIN Multilingual Keyboards, which are currently on sale globally. (http://www.konyin.com)
LANCOR has retained the law firm of Adedeji & Owotomo a Lagos, Nigeria-based law firm that specializes in intellectual property litigation. Both LANCOR and its legal counsel are extremely confident that LANCOR's case will be successful.
LANCOR's lawsuit alleges that OLPC purchased two KONYIN Multilingual Keyboard models (KONYIN Nigeria Multilingual Keyboard and KONYIN United States Multilingual Keyboard) with the express purpose of illegally reverse engineering the source codes for use in OLPC's XO Laptops. "The willful infringement of our client's intellectual property is so blatant and self-evident in the OLPC's XO Laptops," said Solicitor Ade Adedeji, "we will have no problem establishing the facts of our client's case against OLPC in any court of law."
"LANCOR treats its intellectual property as one of the Company's most important resources," said Adé G. Oyegbola, chief executive officer of LANCOR. "This patent infringement lawsuit is another step in LANCOR's continued protection of its intellectual property. LANCOR will continue to take aggressive steps to protect its intellectual property around the world. LANCOR is also in the process of filing a similar lawsuit against OLPC in a United States Federal Court," Oyegbola, added.
About Lagos Analysis Corporation
LANCOR is a dynamic technology solutions provider using process reengineering for designs and development of both hardware and software products for end-users. LANCOR, incorporated in Massachusetts in 1994, is a privately held company headquartered in Natick, Massachusetts and can be found on the internet at www.lancorltd.com
I don't understand the use of the link with the title of the blog post.
"The Barcelona floating-point architecture is able to beat the 53xx in quite a few benchmarks, but the Xeon 5472 shows that AMD's third generation Opteron is late to the party."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
The nicest thing he seems to say is that AMD still has a good shot at competing in the server space, which he follows by saying that on the desktop, Core2 crushes Phenom.
I wouldn't point at Anand's review as a positive thing for AMD!
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
"Considering that the best SPECint_rate2006 score of AMD's quad-core at 2.5GHz is 102 while Intel's 5460 (3.16GHz) is already at 138, we think it is safe to assume that the integer performance of AMD's Barcelona is still not up to Intel Core levels. The Xeon 5365 at 3GHz is also able to deliver a significantly higher score (117). This, together with our own benchmark data, makes us believe that the Xeon 54xx based on the Penryn architecture will beat the best AMD chips on every aspect of raw processing performance: integer, legacy x87 FP, and SIMD (SSE). It is clear now why Intel's CPUs are so dominant in desktop and workstation workloads."
"There is little doubt in our mind that a 2.5GHz Xeon is faster in almost every application we can think off, so Intel's newest Xeon does have the price/performance crown as well."
Hold up here, Anand is an Intel kisser?
Wasn't Anand the same guy who moved his ENTIRE data center from Intel to AMD when the K8's first hit due to their performance over Intel? Wasn't Anand one of the biggest supporters of AMD for years?
This just goes to show boys and girls, what happens when you become a fanboi like Sharikou, you lose ALL touch with reality and are forced to pick and chose from benchmarks without looking at the overall picture, and have morons like oneexpert, penix and jeach! supporting you.
Howell is just an ignorant cunt.
Oh, and boner and one? Knock it off. It was funny, now its just annoying. I can appreciate what you are trying to do though.
Wasn't Anand the same guy who moved his ENTIRE data center from Intel to AMD when the K8's first hit due to their performance over Intel?
I think he done it with the Athlon MP...
The Athon MP also crushed Intel CPUs at that time.
Even before AMD release the Athlon MP was also crushing Intel:
23/8/2000
The Search for the Perfect Servers
Who had thought that the lower market share company had better products than the monopolist Intel?, and for many years...
Wow - cherrypicking benchmarks. Sounds like someone else we know. Not to mention AMD.
Dell To “De-Emphasize” AMD In ‘08
To me that review shows most IT professionals where The new Quad AMD Opteron is going to pay dividends..
Swap out all my dual core Opterons on my quad socket box's install Quad Opterons.. With NO FSB performance killer, It will kill anything Intel can come up with for 2 more years+
end of story!
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
McConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
vvMcConnell says that share gains versus AMD are “rapidly accelerating” in both notebooks and servers. “Our contacts now expect Intel’s overall processor share to move from 75% to 80% currently to 80% to 85% in the first half of 2008,” he writes. McConnell calculates that every 250 basis points of market share boost revenue by $815 million and profits by 3 cents a share.
According to McConnell, Dell (DELL) plans to “de-emphasize” the use of AMD processors in 2008, “due to the disappointing performance of Barcelona and Phenom, poor availability and AMD’s decision to deliver initial shipments of its new Phenom product line to the channel first rather than to OEMs.”
IBM PERSONAL COMPUTERS
The IBM Personal Computer, commonly known as the IBM PC, is the original version and progenitor of the IBM PC compatible hardware platform. It is IBM model number 5150, and was introduced on August 12, 1981. It was created by a team of engineers and designers under the direction of Don Estridge of the IBM Entry Systems Division in Boca Raton, Florida.
The term "personal computer" was common currency before 1981, and was used as early as 1972 to characterize Xerox PARC's Alto. However, because of the success of the IBM PC, what had been a generic term came to mean specifically a microcomputer compatible with IBM's specification.
The original PC was an IBM attempt to get into the small computer market then dominated by the Commodore PET, Atari 8-bit family, Apple II and Tandy Corporation's TRS-80s, and various CP/M machines.
Rather than going through the usual IBM design process, which had already failed to design an affordable microcomputer (the unsuccessful IBM 5100), a special team was assembled with authorization to bypass normal company restrictions and get something to market rapidly. This project was given the code name Project Chess.
The team consisted of twelve people headed by Don Estridge and Chief Scientist Larry Potter. They developed the PC in about a year. To achieve this they first decided to build the machine with "off-the-shelf" parts from a variety of different original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and countries. Previously IBM had developed their own components. Second, they decided on an open architecture so that other manufacturers could produce and sell peripheral components and compatible software. IBM also sold an IBM PC Technical Reference Manual which included a listing of the ROM BIOS source code.
At the time, Don Estridge and his team considered using the IBM 801 processor and its operating system that had been developed at the IBM research laboratory in Yorktown Heights, New York (The 801 is an early RISC microprocessor designed by John Cocke and his team at Yorktown Heights.) The 801 was at least an order of magnitude more powerful than the Intel 8088, and the operating system many years more advanced than the DOS operating system from Microsoft, that was finally selected. Ruling out an in-house solution made the team’s job much easier and may have avoided a delay in the schedule, but the ultimate consequences of this decision for IBM were far-reaching.
NOTICE IBM considered the intel 8088 a cheap inferior cpu to its own 801 RISC cpu and a big mistake.
XBOX 360
Not to be confused with the Intel Xeon.
Power Architecture
CPU architecture
Historical
POWER • PPC6xx • PowerPC-AS • POWER2 • POWER3 • G4 • POWER4 • AIM alliance
Current
PowerPC • e200 • e300 • e500 • e600 • PA6T • POWER5 • POWER6 • PPC4xx • PPC750 • PPC970 • CBEA • Xenon • Broadway
Future
POWER7 • e700 • Titan
Related Links
RISC • System p • Power.org • PAPR • PReP • CHRP • more...
Waternoose processor
Xenon(watermoose) is a CPU that is used in the Xbox 360 game console. The processor, internally codenamed "Waternoose" by IBM and "XCPU" by Microsoft is based on IBM's PowerPC technology, consisting of 3 independent cores on a single chip. Each of the cores has two symmetric hardware threads (SMT), for a total of six hardware threads available to games. Each individual core also includes 32 KiB of L1 instruction cache and 32 KiB of L1 data cache.
The processors are labelled "XCPU" on the packaging and are manufactured by Chartered. Chartered will reduce the fabrication process in 2007 to 65 nm, thus reducing manufacturing costs for Microsoft.
The name "Xenon" was repurposed from the code name for the Xbox 360 in early development.
NOT EVEN MICROSOFT WANTED INTEL cpus.
If IBM did not like intel and microsoft does not like intel why should the rest of us be stuck with there antique relics?
JOIN AMD and the OLPC allied with the forces of good to make a better world for us all.
intel and its associates, have tried to derail the OLPC charity effort to enslave impoverished childern world wide in a technology void.
By my own estimate if the OLPC produces 10 million laptops they will positively help at least 1 TRILLION people.
intel and its coharts are trying to destroy the hopes and dreams of impoverished childern by destroying the OLPC charity efforts all due to intels primary directive greed.
THE LESS FORTUNATE CHILDERN OF THIS WORLD DESERVE A CHANCE FOR TECHNOLOGIES BENEFITS.
SUPPORT THE OLPC AND ITS SUPPORTERS including AMD.
BOYCOTT ANY COMPANY THAT IS NOT ALLIED WITH THE FORCES OF GOOD.
Support those who cannot afford to aquire the benefits of technology by supporting the OLPC and its supporters.
JOIN THE OLPC AND its supporters and help create world peace and prosperity for all.
WORLD PEACE AND PROSPERITY FOR ALL IS THE BIG PICTURE.
World Wise investors have just placed nearly 700 million dollars into AMD stock, because AMD is part of the big picture.
AMD attracts confident investors.
BUY AMD hi performance, energy saving, low cost, future proof, cpus, platforms, video solutions and growth stock.
Please join AMD in its support of the OLPC and their effort to create World Peace and prosperity for all..
PS...You can now buy AM2 REAL QUAD core cpus from AMD retailers world wide, they are future proof and will never be obsolete like intels entire antique relic cpu line up will shortly become(nehalem barcelona knock off).
This comment has been removed by the author.
TWO COMPANIES ATTACK O.L.P.C CHARITY....
Giant said...
OLPC SUED FOR ILLEGAL USE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:
Lagos Analysis Corp. (LANCOR) Files Lawsuit Against Nicholas Negroponte and OLPC Association for Patent Infringement.
oneexpert said...
OLPC CHARITY ATTACKED BY intel
SHAME...SHAME....SHAME...on intel
Sunday November 25, 2007 22:28:26 EST
Nov 26, 2007 (financialwire.net via COMTEX News Network) --
November 26, 2007 (FinancialWire) An initiative to bring $100 AMD (NYSE: AMD) laptops to impoverished children has been derailed by rivals such as Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) and the initial lack of Microsoft's (NASDAQ: MSFT) Windows operating system.
The devices have been modified several times and the price tag has risen to $188 after undergoing the changes, which included letting the machines work with Windows. OLPC founder Nicolas Negroponte said that production has began in China, with an initial 200,000 PCs expected to be produced.
Intel released a similar low cost laptop called the Classmate last year after hearing about the OLPC project. Negroponte originally was hoping to sell 150 million laptops by the end of 2008.
TWO companies attacking the OLPC CHARITY.
COINCIDENCE????
BUY AMD hi performance, low cost, future proof, energy saving, most often copied, cpus, platforms and video solutions.
Ok BONER, your just plain retarded!
Go play some place where people will care and give you attention!
Hold are you? 11?
There is only one statement which summarizes it all... and a VERY important one at that:
You may feel for example that using four instances in our SPECjbb test favors AMD too much, but there is no denying that using more virtual machines on fewer physical servers is what is happening in the real world. Intel's best have a solid lead over AMD's quad-core in rendering benchmarks, but some HPC, Java and MySQL benchmarks show that the 2.5GHz Barcelona is able to keep up with (or come close to) a 3GHz Xeon 5472. That is impressive, on the condition that we finally see some higher clocked Opteron 23xx chips in commercially available servers.
All in all a benchmark remains only that, a benchmark, which in 99% of all cases can not simulate real world scenarios.
And he said it plain and simple, in the real world... AMD's inferior clocked processor keeps up with Intel's best!
IBM PERSONAL COMPUTERS
The IBM Personal Computer, commonly known as the IBM PC, is the original version and progenitor of the IBM PC compatible hardware platform. It is IBM model number 5150, and was introduced on August 12, 1981. It was created by a team of engineers and designers under the direction of Don Estridge of the IBM Entry Systems Division in Boca Raton, Florida.
The term "personal computer" was common currency before 1981, and was used as early as 1972 to characterize Xerox PARC's Alto. However, because of the success of the IBM PC, what had been a generic term came to mean specifically a microcomputer compatible with IBM's specification.
The original PC was an IBM attempt to get into the small computer market then dominated by the Commodore PET, Atari 8-bit family, Apple II and Tandy Corporation's TRS-80s, and various CP/M machines.
Rather than going through the usual IBM design process, which had already failed to design an affordable microcomputer (the unsuccessful IBM 5100), a special team was assembled with authorization to bypass normal company restrictions and get something to market rapidly. This project was given the code name Project Chess.
The team consisted of twelve people headed by Don Estridge and Chief Scientist Larry Potter. They developed the PC in about a year. To achieve this they first decided to build the machine with "off-the-shelf" parts from a variety of different original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and countries. Previously IBM had developed their own components. Second, they decided on an open architecture so that other manufacturers could produce and sell peripheral components and compatible software. IBM also sold an IBM PC Technical Reference Manual which included a listing of the ROM BIOS source code.
At the time, Don Estridge and his team considered using the IBM 801 processor and its operating system that had been developed at the IBM research laboratory in Yorktown Heights, New York (The 801 is an early RISC microprocessor designed by John Cocke and his team at Yorktown Heights.) The 801 was at least an order of magnitude more powerful than the Intel 8088, and the operating system many years more advanced than the DOS operating system from Microsoft, that was finally selected. Ruling out an in-house solution made the team’s job much easier and may have avoided a delay in the schedule, but the ultimate consequences of this decision for IBM were far-reaching.
NOTICE IBM considered the intel 8088 a cheap inferior cpu to its own 801 RISC cpu and a big mistake.
XBOX 360
Not to be confused with the Intel Xeon.
Power Architecture
CPU architecture
Historical
POWER • PPC6xx • PowerPC-AS • POWER2 • POWER3 • G4 • POWER4 • AIM alliance
Current
PowerPC • e200 • e300 • e500 • e600 • PA6T • POWER5 • POWER6 • PPC4xx • PPC750 • PPC970 • CBEA • Xenon • Broadway
Future
POWER7 • e700 • Titan
Related Links
RISC • System p • Power.org • PAPR • PReP • CHRP • more...
Waternoose processor
Xenon(watermoose) is a CPU that is used in the Xbox 360 game console. The processor, internally codenamed "Waternoose" by IBM and "XCPU" by Microsoft is based on IBM's PowerPC technology, consisting of 3 independent cores on a single chip. Each of the cores has two symmetric hardware threads (SMT), for a total of six hardware threads available to games. Each individual core also includes 32 KiB of L1 instruction cache and 32 KiB of L1 data cache.
The processors are labelled "XCPU" on the packaging and are manufactured by Chartered. Chartered will reduce the fabrication process in 2007 to 65 nm, thus reducing manufacturing costs for Microsoft.
The name "Xenon" was repurposed from the code name for the Xbox 360 in early development.
NOT EVEN MICROSOFT WANTED INTEL cpus.
If IBM did not like intel and microsoft does not like intel why should the rest of us be stuck with there antique relics?
JOIN AMD and the OLPC allied with the forces of good to make a better world for us all.
intel and its associates, have tried to derail the OLPC charity effort to enslave impoverished childern world wide in a technology void.
By my own estimate if the OLPC produces 10 million laptops they will positively help at least 1 TRILLION people.
intel and its coharts are trying to destroy the hopes and dreams of impoverished childern by destroying the OLPC charity efforts all due to intels primary directive greed.
THE LESS FORTUNATE CHILDERN OF THIS WORLD DESERVE A CHANCE FOR TECHNOLOGIES BENEFITS.
SUPPORT THE OLPC AND ITS SUPPORTERS including AMD.
BOYCOTT ANY COMPANY THAT IS NOT ALLIED WITH THE FORCES OF GOOD.
Support those who cannot afford to aquire the benefits of technology by supporting the OLPC and its supporters.
JOIN THE OLPC AND its supporters and help create world peace and prosperity for all.
WORLD PEACE AND PROSPERITY FOR ALL IS THE BIG PICTURE.
World Wise investors have just placed nearly 700 million dollars into AMD stock, because AMD is part of the big picture.
AMD attracts confident investors.
BUY AMD hi performance, energy saving, low cost, future proof, cpus, platforms, video solutions and growth stock.
Please join AMD in its support of the OLPC and their effort to create World Peace and prosperity for all..
PS...You can now buy AM2 REAL QUAD core cpus from AMD retailers world wide, they are future proof and will never be obsolete like intels entire antique relic cpu line up will shortly become(nehalem barcelona knock off).
oneexpert said...
TWO COMPANIES ATTACK O.L.P.C CHARITY....
Giant said...
OLPC SUED FOR ILLEGAL USE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:
Lagos Analysis Corp. (LANCOR) Files Lawsuit Against Nicholas Negroponte and OLPC Association for Patent Infringement.
oneexpert said...
OLPC CHARITY ATTACKED BY intel
SHAME...SHAME....SHAME...on intel
Sunday November 25, 2007 22:28:26 EST
Nov 26, 2007 (financialwire.net via COMTEX News Network) --
November 26, 2007 (FinancialWire) An initiative to bring $100 AMD (NYSE: AMD) laptops to impoverished children has been derailed by rivals such as Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) and the initial lack of Microsoft's (NASDAQ: MSFT) Windows operating system.
The devices have been modified several times and the price tag has risen to $188 after undergoing the changes, which included letting the machines work with Windows. OLPC founder Nicolas Negroponte said that production has began in China, with an initial 200,000 PCs expected to be produced.
Intel released a similar low cost laptop called the Classmate last year after hearing about the OLPC project. Negroponte originally was hoping to sell 150 million laptops by the end of 2008.
TWO companies attacking the OLPC CHARITY.
COINCIDENCE????
BUY AMD hi performance, low cost, future proof, energy saving, most often copied, cpus, platforms and video solutions.
Sharikou: I love to bash you, but turning on moderation is a good move. In the only other nice thing I'm saying about you, I think that you don't censor posts the way Scientia does over on his blog, and that's a good thing too.
I'm all about flamebait on this blog, but brevity is the sould of wit!
EVIL_MERLIN, the wife beater can bite me.
That Anand review showed WHY Barcelona was faster where it was faster and WHY it was slower.
LS-DYNA and CFD were clear wins for AMD and THAT'S where Barcelona is headed, not to mention MySql and SPECJBB, where Barcelona's integer unit is indeed better.
Why is it such a problem for AMD to be competitive when you ALL hollar "without AMD Intel will stick more pricing cattle prods up our asses."
I'd say it sounds like a personal problem.
Poor Sharikou can't handle the truth.
YEs, I'm glad the spammers are gone, but why do I have the strange feeling this place is going to become an AMD fanboi stroking place.
Lead of course by Mr. E-Thug himself, Howell, who loves to talk a big game and blabber on and on about his FORMER career at Microsoft, and supposedly being a former paratrooper...
Then of couse we still have to deal with Sharikou who not only got FIRED from Intel, but is still claiming to have a PHd, when its been proven beyond a doubt he doesnt...
My god the Evil one seems to know a whole lot about everyone?
Are you performing some of that old Merlin black magic for this?
Please do explain how you seem to be some multi-millionaire willing to fly people from all over the world?
If there is any bit of truth to such facts, my guess is 'inheritance' because there is no way a porn-surfer, blog-spammer foul-mouth like you could make it big in this world!
How would you ever know that Sharikou got fired from Intel?
How would you ever know that Howel got fired from Microsoft?
I forgot who, but there was another guy you proclaimed that got fired from some place too!
I'm curious... where did I get fired from?
evil merlin
"YEs, I'm glad the spammers are gone, but why do I have the strange feeling this place is going to become an AMD fanboi stroking place."
Are you suggesting it wasn't from day one?
Why is it that none of the AMD cock-suckers ever bitch about one_dipshit's posts which are nothing but spam bullshit? Fucking tardmuffins.
Paul S. Otellini is a funny guy!
At the Oracle OpenWorld, he was a keynote speaker on November 13th for which his theme was "The Foundation for Innovation".
You can view/read the full keynote here!
In part, the outline reads as follows:
[...] discusses architecting the enterprise around three main areas: innovation, balancing choices in building out the enterprise, and future trends in computing[...]
What a joke! The Intel of ten years ago maybe, but not the Intel of this day and age!
a) Innovation - What inovation? What was the last thing that Intel created/invented which wasn't copied (in part or in whole) or borrowed (we all know what that means)? Was he talking about the Itanic? Since the Pentium 4, Intel has been a sleep, comfortably collecting its dues, spending the majority of its CAPEX on marketing -- after all Paul is a marketing graduate -- and bribery.
b) Balancing choices in building out the enterprise - Intel has not been in a position of choice since they decided to (unofficially) EOL the Itanium. Just about everything Intel has been deciding in the last 10 years is based on forced reactions to its competitors. "Should we go 64-bit", "should we copy x64", "should we do HT", "should we add tons of cache to keep up with AMD", "should we add an IMC", "should we go SSE6... if so, when", "should we lower prices to crush AMD", "should we counter sue", "how do we defend ourselves against the antitrust suite", "should we architect a better GPU", "should we integrate the GPU w/CPU", "should we follow the standards AMD has set for virtualization", "should we build our own torrenza", etc, etc!
c) Future trends in computing - Intel does not set trends... well at least not for the benefit of its clients/consumers. Its competitors (primarily AMD) have been setting the lead and the trends for the past 6 years (HT, IMC, dual, quad, L3, SSE6, 4x4, Fusion, SOI, virtualization, torrenza, etc, etc.
Sadly, the 500 pound gorilla is still following and playing catchup! Yes, they do have a 'slightly' faster frequency at the moment. But luckily for them they can sit back (or do keynote speaches) because AMD has dropped the ball and missed a few beats during 2007.
I believe that AMD is being hurt by all of its distractions. It has too many innovative fronts to pursue. I can't remember who said it, I think it was Seymour Cray or one of the founders of Digital Equipment, but they said that if you tackle more than three engineering feats at once it simply becomes a distraction and you loose focus. I hope that Dr. Ruiz will soon realize this point sooner than later!
Some of you will write back -- actually most of you will write back with nonsense and profanity -- and argue that Intel was first to High-K and first at 45nm and first at quad core.
Although I do like to compare a black box with a black box regardless of its actual makeup, I wouldn't say gluing two cores together is much of an accomplishment... I've done that in my sleep many times :)
As for the first to 45nm, for one they were not first and second I strongly believe that they have no choice (in reaction again) to RUSH to 45nm in order to keep their competitive edge against AMD. Why? Because in order to compensate for AMD's superior architecture they had to put massive amounts of cache. Cache is extremely expensive, so the only way you compensate for this 'problem' is by driving down costs, a.k.a 45nm.
High-K... nope, they weren't first either. I have to admit I by far don't understand all the little technicalities of this so called "biggest transistor advancement in 40 years", but I have a hard time believing that one! It's different material for god's sake! Cars now use aluminum instead of metals, does this make it a 100 year advancement? Just about every product you see around you or use on a daily basis has probably changed from some material to a newer, lighter, stronger material... how the hell has that been significant for me? Only time will tell if Intel's new process will be fruitful. Just because Intel said so, it doesn't make it true or law! Half the top 10 chip companies around the globe (IBM, Sony, Samsung, AMD, etc) will proclaim that SOI is advantageous while Intel proclaims it useless... it's just a matter of point-of-view, NOT an advancement!
YEs, I'm glad the spammers are gone, but why do I have the strange feeling this place is going to become an AMD fanboi stroking place.
We want you to go away. Should I apologize for working at Microsoft? Or for being Airborne? Or for supporting AMD?
Now if you'd only self-censor and delete oneexpert's posts, that would be a Godsend Sharikou.
Anyone here actualy read one of oneexpert's posts all the way through from start to finish?
Yeah, didn't think so.
Lead of course by Mr. E-Thug himself, Howell, who loves to talk a big game and blabber on and on about his FORMER career at Microsoft, and supposedly being a former paratrooper...
Merlin, every time you post something like this I have to wipe my ass afterwards from laughing so hard.
I'm curious... where did the rumor about Sharikou working at Intel start? Do we base this on anything?
For those retards that claim Microsoft and Intel are at fault for OLPC's failures...
Read, and then shut the fuck up.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/Wny$100LaptopProjectIsUnderSiege.aspx?page=1
Of course, I'm sure some of the morons that live off of Sharikou's teat will claim this says nothing, but then again, we are talking about the same retards that cherrypick benchmarks to try to prove that the AMD Barcelona family isn't in 2nd place right now...
I know some of you write off AMD with their newest architecture and are quick to point out benchmarks which show Intel's offerings beat AMD.
Just remember...
"Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system"
Seymour Cray
If you don't know who/what Cray is then you probably found yourself wondering here by mistake... for those who do know, you probably also know that in his time he built some of the most powerful systems ever built.
Seymour said this while speaking on the importance of balancing memory, bandwidth and throughput.
Something which Intel just recently learned from AMD!!
NEW TITLE: Year old Core 2 Quad crushes and AMD quad like a bug in TLB
1.) Flying someone from NY to Boston is fucking cheap. But since you still live in your folks basement and take the short bus to work (while wearing your special helmet and drool bib) you wouldn't know anything about that.
2.) I offered to have the company limo pick him up at the airport. And yes, I have access to the company limos. No more than 5 times a year though, as long as there are no conflicts with upper managements schedules.
3.)How do I know Sharikou got fired from Intel? He said so himself. Not to mention his comments about IntelWatch and how other people were "soon going to join him". Its been made quite clear before as well when he tried to defend his PHd from the Slashdot hordes.
4.) I never said Howell got fired from Microsoft, I said he couldn't hack it at Microsoft, and left the job. More than likely NOT by choice as he is a moron and a chickenshit to boot.
5.) You are just a fucking idiot, so you probably work at some store like Best Buy or Circuit City thinking you are some computer god. When in fact you are just a poser fanboi.
Oh by the way Jeach! you can clamor on and on about Cray all you want. Just remember Intel has 3 computers in the top 5 of the Top 500 supercomputers. AMD has ZERO.
You really have no fucking clue do you?
AMD KILLS OFF QUAD FX PLATFORM:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9838
AMD diverts resources from the Quad FX platform development the same year it promises Quad FX is the enthusiast future
AMD excited many technology enthusiasts last year when it introduced the Quad FX platform. AMD representatives touted this platform as the next big thing from AMD.
AMD apparently talked up its Quad FX enthusiast platform so well that Intel decided to roll out a competing product in its unreleased Skulltrail platform. When the Quad FX platform first hit market in January of 2007 it seemed doomed from the start to many with steep price premiums for the mainboards and the processors. These price premiums led to the lethargic adoption of the platform.
According to The Tech Report AMD representative Suzy Pruitt commented on the future of Quad FX. “The short answer is that while there are still engineering resources focused on future platform offerings that build off Quad FX, the current energy and effort has gone into programs and product initiatives like Spider and AMD has discontinued future planning and development of its eight-core enthusiast platform at this time.”
Pruitt continued, “We will continue to support customers that have an existing Quad FX with DSDC and are also working on an upgrade path for those customers. While AMD is not actively promoting AMD Opteron processor as a 2P enthusiast solution, we recognized that there are enthusiasts who are looking for two-socket solutions and think an Opteron platform is well-suited to meet that demand at this time.”
After all the promises ad statements by AMD that Quad FX was the companies enthusiast future, AMD has apparently decided to all but kill the platform off. The few enthusiasts who plunked down the big dollars required to adopt the platform should be feeling a bit uncomfortable right now.
AMD promises to continue support for the platform. However, AMD also promised the platform was the future and the company has all but killed it off the same year. The best Quad FX owners can look forward to is an upgrade to Opteron processors that work with the Quad FX mainboards.
BUY Intel hi performance, energy saving, low cost, future proof, cpus, platforms, video solutions and growth stock.
Cars now use aluminum instead of metals
I think this statements goes a long way in providing us understanding of your stated comprehension problems...
Latest forecasts show AMD falling out of the top ten. Must be that awesome quadcore they got that is winning market share there.
Just like your PhD heah, phony. Or like your ctrl C crl V oneretard.
AMD is down and out due to crappy design, crappy silicon, and busted bankaccount.
Where is INTEL on your BK countdown.
Poor patty
It looks as if the shiny silver phallus is whining and making a claim about Intel's plans 'backfiring' in reponse to this Inquirer article
How AMD messed up Christmas
Here's the shiny silver one's spew.
More doom and gloom
With all of the crap floating around about a company 1/10th the size of Intel, it seems like everyone liked the 90s and the way Intel put choke chains on all of the OEMs - and customers.
I don't think AMD had overly high prices. Their single core chips were low-priced and the dual cores were costly, but they were 80% faster than the single cores.
At the same time Intel was sabotaging AMD launches, threatening to pull chipsets or charge the other arm and leg for them if OEMs sold more than three AMD chips.
I think this will be a good XMas for AMD as they had record revenue last quarter and are on the verge of $2B per quarter.
We should all be down on our knees thanking AMD for fighting the good fight - with a "convicted" monopolist no less.
We now have quad core that are less than dual core chips at their intro. I don't actually think that's a good thing though.
I expect Intel's plan to backfire and AMDs share to continue to grow. They clawed back some last quarter even in the face of C2D. Once the 65nm process is 100%, the cost savings will be apparent even with a larger die as 300mm wafers @ 65nm will still provide A LOT more Phenoms than Fab 30 made K8s.
And the really funny thing is how everyone sees the Asset-Light initiative playing out. It has nothing to do with "outsourcing," it has to do with providing more capacity at a lower cost.
If anything, TSMC, Chartered and IBM will make chipsets or the low end Rana, while Fab36 makes mostly Barcelona and Fab 38 makes mostly Phenom (X2, X3, X4).
That would provide them with enough capacity for 40% of the market and people can stop saying they can't supply enough chips.
posted by : BaronMatrix, 29 November 2007
Who is a "convicted monopolist" again? Convicted in your living room perhaps by yourself playing sock puppet trial by jury?
Hey, how do you know what AMD's "Asset-Light" is or isn't?
And K10 still gets trounced by K8, Intel Core 2, no matter what your wild 'roleplay' games suggest to you.
Quit complaining about CPU prices. Intel deserves to rake in the money. AMD stumbled due to its own ineptitude, and you know it.
Apologist.
[...] But since you still live in your folks basement and take the short bus to work [...]
5.) [...] you probably work at some store like Best Buy or Circuit City thinking you are some computer god.
Amazing, you got everything right!
I live with my parents, take the bus to Best Buy every day and work in the AMD department!
Surprisingly, you get everything about Intel right also!
Cray is a thing of the past... but regardless you have to look back, respect and admire what some have accomplished. You've got your head so far up Otellini's ass that you don't know what is good from bad, warm from cold and hard from soft. Time to sit back a take a breath of fresh air in order to get some common sense into you!
As far as cars and alluminum, well the comment wasn't made for you! It was made for those that are old enough to drive and actually remember when cars were made of metal sheets so thick if you dented your door you needed a 2 ton hydrolic press to dent it back out. And when you had a 'fender bender', your bumper didn't just absorb the hit with plastic and foam like today but actually bent way out of shape. But your excused anyway!
I never said Howell got fired from Microsoft, I said he couldn't hack it at Microsoft, and left the job. More than likely NOT by choice as he is a moron and a chickenshit to boot.
I told you you didn't have to pay. Just tell me your address or a place where you would like to be stomped.
I left MS so I wouldn't be blamed for the mess that is Vista. Not to mention that 200 days of rain is about as depressing as depressing gets.
Hey, how do you know what AMD's "Asset-Light" is or isn't?
Actually that's a good point!
I wouldn't go as far as to replace Hector just yet, but let me tell you that the thought has passed through my mind once or twice.
There are two things that bother me about Ruiz' current strategy:
a) Distraction/Focus - as I've said before, AMD has too many projects in development at the same time which makes them loose focus and is an overall distraction.
b) Asset Light - what the hell is that anyway! Just the fact that once in a while you'll hear a differing definition of what it is, is a big problem. A CEO must be understood and he must be clear. Hector for some reason doesn't give any information on this 'asset light' strategy. Analysts are confused, users are confused, investors are confused!!
Jeach!, common sense is understanding that Intel has already won this processor battle. For this generation, the more Intel releases, the worse AMD is looking. The fact that AMD is having issues at 65um while Intel is quickly making the full transition to 45um ahead of schedule is more proof of the problems. All the crap that AMD has pulled with the trip for the press to Taho (however you spell it) is yet more proof again. The fact that Sharikou is spinning ANY press to make the K10 look good is another. I mean really the guy is jumping up and down about J2EE performance for Christ's sake, never mind the fact than in 90% of all the other tests/benchmarks, including very important ones like business applications the Intel linup CLOCK FOR CLOCK is running with less power and faster overall than the K10. For RIGHT NOW the K10 is hurting AMD more than it is helping AMD at this time.
Thus its quite clear you are the one suffering from detachment from reality. Many sites, including those who are very VERY AMD centric, have been admitting that Intel's Peryrn based CPUS are, faster, cooler and more efficient than the similarlly clocked K10's. Lets not even get into the fact that AMD is having issues supplying K10's to anyone, and has yet to hit any meaningful clock speed at all. Oh and we can get into the whole errata thing which AMD is forcing to fix very quickly and very quietly...
until you can prove that AMD's currently shipping K10 lineup is performing as well or better than the exiting Intel linup, you ain't got a leg to stand on.
Cray did some amazing things back in the day, but right now, they are just has beens.
Cars made like that also got 20 MPG, polluted the atmosphere, and were far from as safe as vehicles are today. But hell, I wouldn't mind having a 1967 Mach1 Mustang, in red.
As I said Howell, the corporate limo will pick you up at your choice of either Manchester or Logan.
And as I said, the only thing you will be stomping, is your own intestines as you remove your "boots" from your ass.
Funny thing, you were not on the Vista team, so how could you be blamed for the supposed mess that is Vista? Or are you going to change your story again?
Wow, not only are you an e-thug, but it appears you are also a liar.
until you can prove that AMD's currently shipping K10 lineup is performing as well or better than the exiting Intel linup, you ain't got a leg to stand on.
Got no proof, and you've got no argument from me!
I agree to what your saying, and it is clear that AMD has many, many problems on many levels.
But, I strongly reject any notion from other Intelites that:
a) The K10 architecture is flawed or inferior, and
b) Barcelona can't be fixed and thus is already a lost battle, and lastly
c) That AMD is a bad company and is doomed!
On the other hand, what I do worry about is WHEN will the K10 be ironed out and WHEN will AMD be 'running' with the ball again. AMD's silence is brutal!
Since the Core architecture came out Intel has been running... at quite a fast pace without dropping the ball themselves. I knew that 2006 and 2007 would be an execution race and not a technological one.
Cray did some amazing things back in the day, but right now, they are just has beens.
Haven't made some kind of comeback lately? Aren't they producing Top 500 systems right now? I could swear they've got one or two in the top 10! Too lazy to check too :)
jeach! wrote,
Since the Core architecture came out Intel has been running... at quite a fast pace without dropping the ball themselves. I knew that 2006 and 2007 would be an execution race and not a technological one.
You might say that AMD got lucky when Intel derailed itself with the Pentium 4 design, but managed to make quite a penny by selling them vs AMD's K8 family.
You might also say that now that Intel has its eye on the ball again, that AMD's 'luck' has vanished. The introduction of Core 2 caught AMD flat footed and with Penryn even more so.
I'm reading about rumors of Intel pulling in Nehalem and some information about alleged configurations have started to make their way out on the web.
Cray did some amazing things back in the day, but right now, they are just has beens.
Haven't made some kind of comeback lately? Aren't they producing Top 500 systems right now? I could swear they've got one or two in the top 10! Too lazy to check too :)
Well, you might have been too lazy to check about Cray but I wasn't. Looking at the Top 500 list between 2007 and 2006, Cray dropped 1 system from the list so I wouldn't call this a 'comeback'.
Top 500 Site
So often the Intel fanboys make grossly inaccurate conclusions to claim the results are in their favor. It has been suggested that these may be paid actors who push Intel for a paycheck. I do not believe this to be true. If it were, their poor behavior and lack of insight is an embarrassment to Intel.
So often these Intel fanboys resort to slander and spam to push their point. I'm sure they would rather push facts, but there simply are none to use. AMD continues to push the competition to their limits in every benchmark.
The largest, and most overlooked fact is the industry position AMD has set itself up for. With OLPC, AMD has preconditioned the entire 3rd world to using AMD products. Early on, Intel did not recognize it as a threat, and even donated to the cause in an attempt to buy themselves some face value. As soon as they realized their mistake, they quickly made a desperate and failed attempt to kill off OLPC. AMD has planted the seeds for their success while Intel madly tries to burn down the forest. It's a disgusting disgrace.
Hyper Transport, Native Quad Core, Fusion and D.I.C.E. are just a few examples of the many directions that AMD is taking to ensure their continued industry lead. What does Intel have to answer to AMD? Honestly, it really doesn't matter. Just the fact that Intel is answering to AMD just proves that it is AMD driving the innovation in the industry.
penix spewed a bunch of non-sequiteur
Intel is setting the pace and has AMD scrambling to arrest market share and ASP erosion.
Intel's in the driver's seat now and those who are intelligent enough to do their unbias analysis know and they are voting with their wallets.
AMD did not out innovate anyone. AMD has copied and borrowed ideas from Intel, DEC, IBM, and others and may be infringing on patents of others (i.e. Opti).
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but those that will determine AMD's and Intel's fate know the end game.
Care to place your bets which way this David vs Goliath contest will end?
LMAO
Post a Comment
<< Home