Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:13:28 06/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2003 at 12:56:58, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 10, 2003 at 11:05:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 10, 2003 at 02:37:56, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On June 09, 2003 at 22:31:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 08, 2003 at 17:29:30, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 08, 2003 at 08:25:17, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 08, 2003 at 07:43:51, Michael P. Nance Sr. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Tell Me how You think that a P/C with ONLY 650 mhz and ONLY 512 OF Ram is even >>>>>>>worth considering? Wouldn't You think that a Computer like that is >>>>>>>obsolete?>>>>Mike >>>>>> >>>>>>Those are not PCs so you can't simply compair the MHz numbers if you want to >>>>>>compair speed/performance. They are not obsolete, but I agree you wouldn't want >>>>>>to buy one (only) for computerchess at all :). >>>>> >>>>>You're right, an UltraSPARC IIi MHz is worth less than a Pentium 3, Pentium 4, >>>>>or Athlon MHz. :) >>>>> >>>>>-Tom >>>> >>>> >>>>I'm not sure that is totally true. But the problem is they don't make those >>>>3+ gigahertz processors. They are so far behind they will never catch up. And >>>>I really don't believe they intend to try. >>> >>>No, it's true. According to SPEC 2k submissions, the US-IIi is the slowest >>>processor you can buy (per GHz) except for the US-IIe. >>> >>>http://www.aceshardware.com/SPECmine/index.jsp?b=0&s=2&v=4&if=0&r1f=2&r2f=0&m1f=0&m2f=0&o=0&o=1 >>> >>>Even the Pentium 4 gets slightly more SPECints/GHz, the difference being that >>>the P4 runs at 3GHz and the IIi runs at 650MHz. Whoops... too bad for Sun. >>> >>>-Tom >> >> >>SPECINT is not the perfect test, however. The sparc _can_ do 64 bit operations, >>which means it gets more per instruction than a PIV, for applications that need >>64 bits. IE 64 bit adds, etc. > >Well, sure, the US is a completely 64-bit chip. It may do more per instruction >but it's still in-order so it doesn't necessarily do more per clock. Also, >imagine a P4 running at 650MHz... no more memory bottleneck, so it'll perform >WAY better per GHz. > >-Tom Its "in order" but it is still super-scalar, which means optimizing turns it into a more than one instruction per cycle processor. however, I'm not about to argue that it's worth a thing, of course. Their clock rates are 5x behind everyone else and the raw CPU speed is another 2x worse...
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.