Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 18:16:35 06/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2003 at 21:13:21, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 30, 2003 at 21:11:06, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On June 30, 2003 at 20:51:58, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On June 29, 2003 at 16:57:02, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On June 29, 2003 at 16:08:02, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Measuring specint for a new chip using a compiler that in effect cripples it, is >>>>>>not only incompetent, it's misleading, IMO. >>>>> >>>>>If it's incompetent to use a compiler that makes faster binaries than another >>>>>compiler, then I think you can call everyone incompetent. >>>> >>>>Well yes, it is. >>>> >>>>If Carl Lewis has a broken leg, we should postpone the race until he is back in >>>>shape, anything else will just be a race with a broken leg. >>>> >>>>It is however amazing how fast the chip is running, even with it being on >>>>crutches. >>>> >>>>-S. >>> >>>It is not on crutches. The x86-64 ISA is more or less the same as the x86-32 >>>ISA. >>> >>>-Tom >> >>Seeing is believing. >> >>If I'm not mistaken the specint uses Crafty as an integer benchmark, obviously >>this is 64-bit *integer*, hence huge difference between 332 abd 64 bit, hence >>the whole thing is more or less rediculous. >> >>-S. > >What would you suggest? That AMD retract its SPEC submissions and ask vendors >not to make SPEC submissions until performance of 64-bit binaries on the Opteron >is to your liking? Sure. That'll boost sales. Ah I see, you think running 32 bit binaries is testing a 64 bit chip, hurray for progress - why did AMD even bother? -S. >-Tom
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.