Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: queston for Dr Hyatt 64 bit processor

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 19:38:45 09/15/01

Go up one level in this thread


On September 15, 2001 at 19:59:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On September 14, 2001 at 17:51:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On September 14, 2001 at 15:54:40, K. Burcham wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>below is part of an artical that i read on the net.
>>>i know you could get real technical about 64 bit. not necessary
>>>but here is my question.
>>>if we have two processors both 1500 mhz. both same brand. but "a"
>>>  has 32 bit 1500 mhz with 32 bit program.
>>>"b" has 64 bit 1500 mhz with 64 bit program.
>>>
>>>how would a kns benchtest compare with these two examples?
>>>so if in example "a" the kns benchtest was 1200 kns for 32 bit,
>>>    what would the 64 bit do in a similiar benchtest.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_if_ the 64 bit program really uses 64 bit integers, then it will be faster.
>>Because the 64 bit processor is doing one 64 bit operation every cycle, while
>>the 32 bit processor will do only one 32 bit operation every cycle.  The
>>requirement is that the program really has to use 64 bit stuff.  But if it does,
>>a 64 bit machine is potentially twice as fast as a 32 bit machine...
>>That is the driving force behind 64 bit development, in fact.
>
>But in reality the 32 bit operations go at a rate of nearly 2 a cycle and
>on paper can get 3 a cycle versus the 64 bits we must wait and see how
>many a cycle can be done :)


Vincent, please study some of the spec sheets first.  The 21264 already
executes _four_ instructions per clock cycle.  That is why the thing has a
256-bit wide data bus to memory.



>
>>
>>>
>>>Hammer processors, sometimes referred to as "K8," will first be produced on an
>>>advanced 0.13 micron SOI process out of AMD's Dresden megafab.  Unlike Intel's
>>>Itanium, Hammer chips will provide uncompromised performance on legacy 32-bit
>>>applications as well as open up the 64-bit computing "new frontier."  In fact,
>>>Hammers are expected to be the fastest chips in the world at running 32-bit x86
>>>code, while seriously challenging the fastest 64-bit processors on 64-bit code.
>>>
>>
>>
>>It is unlikely they will do both well.  But there are exceptions.  IE if you
>>use single-precision floats vs double-precision floats on an IBM RS6000, you
>>will find _zero_ speed difference.  Because the RS6000 does all FP operations
>>in 64 bits.  So using 32 bit numbers is somewhat slower than on a real 32 bit
>>machine that pumps less data around.
>
>I doubt they will do this, because 'int' should go to 32 bits integers.

Nothing in the ANSI standard says this.  Which is unfortunate, but it is a
way of life in the ANSI world... the standard that "isn't", really...




>It would mean they need a very special compiler to run normal executables
>on this processor in short.


Not particularly.  GCC already compiles for 64 bit machines. Alpha, MIPS,
SPARC, etc...



>
>I think this is why the IA64 hasn't reached me yet, because i need to
>especially compile for it.
>
>Now that's still pretty simple as i have a cross compiler at home,
>so we can generate IA64 bits native code at a 32 bits machine (of course
>not run it).
>
>However, i doubt they will be able to do that with GCC soon.
>I've toyed quite some with gcc and making a cross compiler
>is pretty hard!

It is already done.  In fact, linux for IA64 is fully functional.  Which
means that GCC had to be finished first...




>
>I will of course not buy hammer but cross compiling an executable for it
>is no problem if i can get a compiler that can produce a hammer native
>executable.
>
>Knowing the problems of GCC just a little bit
>i doubt this will happen soon!
>
>Note i never managed to create at my own PC-linux machine a gcc version
>which could create executables for the alpha (with linux of course onboard).
>

I have one on my alpha at the office.  Works fine...

using the same one I use on my quad xeon in fact...



>So that's why i still till today do not have hard numbers on how fast/slow
>a 21264 for me is!
>
>>>The first desktop Hammer product, the so-called "Clawhammer," will also be only
>>>slightly more expensive to produce than contemporary Athlons making 64-bit
>>>processing a real option for the masses in the near future.
>>>
>>>kburcham



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.