Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:19:58 07/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2003 at 21:29:32, Jay Urbanski wrote: >On July 04, 2003 at 23:06:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Simple. It is slower than a dual 2.8xeon box, yet it is AMD's latest. >> >>That's all I said. It is exactly what I meant. > >I wouldn't be so quick to judge. I'm only judging the numbers posted _here_. > From published SPEC results, a 1.8Ghz Opteron >is faster than a 3.2Ghz Xeon (with a 400Mhz FSB) on crafty 18.10: > >1.8Ghz Opteron: 186.crafty 1000 81.3 1230 81.3 1230 >3.2Ghz Xeon: 186.crafty 1000 83.8 1194 83.4 1198 > >http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2000-20030616-02265.html >http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cpu2000-20030421-02108.html > >Both running 32-Bit Windows. None of that matters to the current context. The reported Opteron numbers were worse than my reported dual xeon 2.8 numbers.
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.