Author: Keith Evans
Date: 21:05:29 07/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2003 at 23:35:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 15, 2003 at 23:05:37, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >> >> >>Now i can disproof again the 130ns figure that Bob keeps giving here for dual >>machines and something even faster than that for single cpu (up to 60ns or >>something). Then i'm sure he'll be modifying soon his statement something like >>to "that it is not interesting to know the time of a hashtable lookup, because >>that is not interesting to know; instead the only scientific intersting thing is >>to know is how much bandwidth a machine can actually achieve". >> > > >What is _interesting_ is the fact that you are incapable of even recalling >the numbers I posted. > >to wit: > >dual xeon 2.8ghz, 400mhz FSB. 149ns latency > >PIII/750 laptop, SDRAM. 125ns. > >Aaron posted the 60+ ns numbers for his overclocked athlon. I assume his >numbers are as accurate as mine since he _did_ run lm_bench, rather than >something with potential bugs. > >I can post bandwidth numbers if you want, but that has nothing to do with >latency, as those of us understanding architecture already know. > Can you run lmbench and give the latency numbers for different stride sizes? Then you could quote numbers from cache,... In the lmbench paper they have a nice graph like this.
This page took 0.01 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.