Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 10:15:25 01/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
They did not violated *any* of Spec2k rules, so submitted result is absolutely legal. Of course Spec now should change the rules :-) Eugene On January 30, 2002 at 08:27:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 30, 2002 at 01:00:19, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>POWER4 is really very good processor, but you must read fine print before >>trusting published POWER4 Spec2k results. Their wonderful submitted result is a >>result from 8 CPUs system. Yes, only one CPU run the benchmarks, but it used >>shared L3 caches of all the 8 CPUs – 128Mb of L3 cache total :-) >>Eugene > >Wow that's major fraud, as expected! >They didn't need RAM to run the programs anymore, this is sick! > > > >>On January 29, 2002 at 23:48:32, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On January 29, 2002 at 15:30:51, Dan Andersson wrote: >>> >>>>Sorry! I was less that clear in my wording. I eluded to the ratio between the >>>>pipeline lengths of the different G# CPU's. And the ratio is definitelly larger >>>>than one, moreso due to the previous very low stage count. I also realize that >>>>it is only one of the factors slowing it down. Ramping a low power embedded >>>>processor is close to madness, IMO. Go MIPS Apple, gawd'dagnit! >>> >>>I don't think MIPS would do Apple any good. The 500MHz R14000 is about as fast >>>as a 700MHz Pentium 3. The GHz G4s are faster than that. If Apple wants to get >>>serious about faster computers, they need to make a deal with IBM to get a >>>personal computer version of the POWER4. That would be awesome. >>> >>>-Tom
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.