Author: Brian Richardson
Date: 11:45:05 10/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2001 at 13:58:31, Dann Corbit wrote: >On October 22, 2001 at 07:20:07, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On October 22, 2001 at 05:33:50, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >> >>>Has anyone seen how Crafty does on an Itanium processor? >>> >>>Ralf >> >>www.spec.org >> >>Short answer: pathetic >> >>Itanium 800: 355 > >I suspect that this measurement is largely a misnomer. >The Itanium chip has a popcount instruction. There is no bit-level Itanium popcount instruction. There is one for bytes (non-zero bytes, not bits per byte). There were some posts about this about a year ago. Merced performance is very poor. McKinley may be acceptable. Brian >Much of the core of crafty has been rewritten for IA32 assembly. If the appropriate rewrite takes place for >Itanium, I expect much better figures. > >>Pentium4 2G: 644 >>Athlon 1.4G: 738 >>Alpha 1G: 803 > >On the other hand, this figure for Alpha shows what a vastly superior chip it >is. There has not been an assembly rewrite for Alpha, except a very few minor >things like the locking code. Hence, this excellent performance mark shows what >a terrific architecture Alpha is. > >Now that Compaq has been engulfed by HP, I wonder what the prospects are for the >Alpha chips? I know that OpenVMS is going to be ported to the Itanium. Based >on this bench, it doesn't look promising.
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.