Author: Alessandro Damiani
Date: 02:56:02 03/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2002 at 22:49:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... The 68000 was 32bit (defending it :). And yes, the address space was not 2^32, as Jim wrote. IIRC something like 2^24? But I never met the limit at that time... Alessandro
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.