Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:04:41 07/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 1999 at 19:01:02, Zachariah Amela wrote: >One other posters referred me to an Alpha system when I asked about >multiprocessor machines. I also have a friend who swears by the Alpha because >he says it's integer crunchy is bar-none. > >So tell me about the Alpha? I understand it will run Unix and NT. But what >makes it better? What is the cost? How much horsepower are we talking? What >type of system administration are we talking? Who here that has used/programmed >w/ one can tell me where it shines/doesn't shine? > >Danke schön! This is a difficult thing to answer... I spend a couple of hours on the alpha architecture in a computer architecture course... so a short answer is not easy. But basically: The alpha has a better programming architecture. Intel is register-starved due to legacy decisions made 20+ years ago and the focus on remaining compatible from cpu to cpu (upward compatibility). Alpha isn't register-starved. Intel is memory-starved with a 64bit wide 100mhz bus (133mhz soon). The alpha bus is much wider, and faster, so that feeding an instruction-hungry/ data-hungry cpu is much easier. There are a few other issues that are not so important to the discussion (better pipelining, etc.) And finally, the alpha is a 64 bit cpu... For programs that have high data density (bitboard programs for example) this extra data width is significant. For programs based purely on 32 bit (or less) integers, the alpha's extra bits don't offer a lot without a lot of reprogramming. But they _do_ scream... integer _and_ floating point. And Digital has been doing > 4-way SMP boxes for 20 years. They know how to do that blindfolded. Intel is just getting into the SMP market.
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.