Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:49:35 03/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2002 at 21:50:56, James T. Walker wrote: >On March 13, 2002 at 14:12:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 13, 2002 at 00:29:21, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>aloha! >>> >>>here's something i found on a german computer magazine website: >>>(http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/) >>> >>> >>>"Under Windows we made use of Visual Studio 6 (with Service Pack 5), with which >>>in all probability most Windows applications have been created. The SPEC results >>>obtained with the new compilers such as the current GCC 3.0 or Intel's in-house >>>compiler are better by between ten and more than twenty percent. >>>[snip] >>>With a SPECint_base value of 306 Apple's 1 GHz machine under Mac OS X ran almost >>>head to head with the equally clocked Pentium III, combined with Linux and GCC, >>>with a SPECint_base value of 309. Under Windows, the bad quality of Microsoft's >>>run-of-the-mill compiler, which pushed the system down to a SPECint_base value >>>of 236, below the 242 value of the PowerMac running at a clock cycle of 800 MHz, >>>came back to haunt the Intel processor." >>> >>>and then there is the link http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/qpic01.jpg >>>which shows the specint crafty result which is a whopping 444 for GCC and >>>only 293 for MSVC. >>> >>>is this really possible?? i remember i once tried GCC for my checkers program, >>>and of course it's long ago, but it was clearly worse than MSVC at the time. i >>>just can't remember anybody posting anything like this here, GCC being 50% >>>faster than MSVC... but usually, this magazine is good... >>> >>>cheers >>> martin >>> >>>PS: just another question: is linux 32-bit or 64-bit? can i use more than 2-4GB >>>ram under linux? >> >> >>1. I've never seen GCC within 10% of the speed of MSVC. I doubt it has >>suddenly happened. >> >>2. Linux is _both_. On intel (non-IA64 machines) it is a 32 bit operating >>system. On 64 bit processors like that Alpha or IA64 it is a 64 bit operating >>system. The RAM limit is not an OS issue, it is an architectural issue. Except >>for a bizarre hack Intel added a couple of years back, the 32 bit machines are >>limited to 4 gigs (2^32). With a kludge they added, this goes to 32 gigs I >>believe, but only for (at the time) the Xeons... > >Hello Bob, >Can you confirm that the P3/P4 and AMD Athlons have only 32 address lines? My >understanding of microprocessors is that the memory limit is due to the number >of address lines and not the number of data bit lines. Meaning that a 32 bit >processor can pass 32 bits in parallel but the amount of memory that it can >address is 2^X where "X" is dependent on the number of address lines the cpu >has. I remember the Motorola 68000 had something like 21/23 address lines even >though it was a 16 bit processor(Don't tie me to that exactly). I have tried to >look up the Pentium and have been unable to get a pin-out of it. >Jim I'm not sure either. I only know that the xeons have 4 extra bits that are usable, although it might be that _all_ the processors have 36 bits but they don't function on anything but xeons... no idea... I'll try to find out...
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.