Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:04:03 03/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2004 at 16:43:00, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On March 01, 2004 at 15:22:10, Brian Richardson wrote: > >>On March 01, 2004 at 14:24:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 01, 2004 at 14:20:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On March 01, 2004 at 13:59:25, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 01, 2004 at 13:49:38, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 01, 2004 at 12:05:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 29, 2004 at 23:38:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[snip] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You qualify the testresults as done for SPEC as INVALID and INCORRECT? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>YES or NO? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[bla bla removed] >>>>>> >>>>>>Had you stopped to drink vodka every morning? >>>>>> >>>>>>Please answer only YES or NO. >>>>>> >>>>>>[bla bla removed] >>>>> >>>>>So, my previous post pointed that there are questions for which you cannot >>>>>answer "YES or NO". >>>>> >>>>>And here is *official* SPEC data for 1.3GHz K7 and 1.5GHz Itanium2: >>>>> >>>>>http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2001q4/cpu2000-20011008-01018.html >>>>>http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q1/cpu2000-20040126-02775.html >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, >>>>>Eugene >>>> >>>> >>>>Please do not confuse discussions with Vincent by supplying real data. Things >>>>stay on a more equal footing if you just make up stuff and post it here. >>>> >>>><sarcasm off> >>>> >>>>:) >>> >>> >>>For those that didn't look at the data, the 1.5ghz K7 compared to the 1.5ghz >>>itanium shows a 50% faster speed on the Itanium. IE the K7 took 127 seconds to >>>run the test, the Itanium took 80. >>> >> >>Yes, but isn't the K7 a 32 bit CPU, whereas the Itanium2 is 64 bits? >>If so, then clock for clock is not very indicative, especially >>quoting a 2 1/2 year old benchmark. >> >>How about Opteron vs Itanium? > >For Crafty, Opteron is faster. For some other integer programs (including some >in Spec2k suite) Itanium2 is faster. > >Overall, 2.2GHz Opteron has Spec2k peak integer score of 1477. 1.5GHz Itanium2 >has Spec2k peak integer score of 1404, i.e. 5% worse. This is basically because of the bigger L3 cache from Itanium. It has an incredible L3 cache from 6 MB. The opteron has 'just' 1 MB L2 cache. Additionally the HP compiler has a huge influence. I wonder what opteron would do for chessprograms when it would be able to retire 4 integer instructions a cycle instead of 3. >http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q1/cpu2000-20040126-02775.html >http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-20031117-02626.html >For SpecFP situation is different -- Itanium2 is 30% better. It has more floating point execution units. Logical that it's faster there when using real good compilers for it. I really wonder how fast opteron would be in such floating point benchmarks when just 50% of the effort spent in writing compilers for Itanium2 had been put in writing compilers for opteron. We sure will see it in the future! >http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q1/cpu2000-20040126-02755.html >http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-20031117-02630.html > >Thanks, >Eugene > >>>Why 1.5ghz K7? Because Vincent was talking about "clock for clock" and Eugene >>>chose to supply real data rather than barking up a hollow tree...
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.