Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:58:04 05/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2002 at 09:08:22, Slater Wold wrote: >On May 30, 2002 at 08:33:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 30, 2002 at 01:23:35, Slater Wold wrote: >> >>>On May 29, 2002 at 20:34:37, Scott Gasch wrote: >>> >>>>On May 29, 2002 at 19:50:20, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 29, 2002 at 18:39:03, Scott Gasch wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I've been gently informed that I'm not supposed to talk about the speed of >>>>>>not-released processors, sorry about that. >>>>>> >>>>>>Scott >>>>> >>>>>I have to admit I realized you were unwittingly violating an NDA, but my >>>>>curiosity got the better of me. I should have told you straight off what you >>>>>were disclosing might get you in trouble. My apologies. >>>> >>>>No apologies needed, it's my own stupidity at fault here. For the record I'm >>>>not in any trouble. I self-censored when it was pointed out to me that I could >>>>possibly get into trouble with this. >>>> >>>>Scott >>> >>>Well hell, now you got us all curious. Now I wanna know what was said. ;) >> >>Well i got info from deep throat lucky. Other source in this case. >>This source confirms that for 64 bits applications like crafty the >>i2 is very fast. 1.5 million nodes a second is not bad. >> >>your bench you posted here at 2.53Ghz P4 was like 950k a second or so? >> >>that's of course major victory for intel getting 1.5 MLN nodes a second >>on a 1Ghz processor. > >P4 2.53Ghz was 965k nps. >Profiled P4 2.53Ghz was 1.09M nps. >Profiled AMD 1.73Ghz was 1.0M nps. >Profiled dual AMD 1.73Ghz was 1.6M nps. > >So one i2 is == to a Dual AMD 1.73Ghz. (IN TERMS OF SPEED.) > >And those suckers are *very* scalable. (While AMDs are not ATM.) right, regrettably the price doesn't scale down much of such a 16 processor mckinley. like $10 million? It's different league of course.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.