Author: Alessandro Damiani
Date: 08:06:59 03/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2002 at 07:34:59, James T. Walker wrote: >On March 14, 2002 at 05:56:02, Alessandro Damiani wrote: > >>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 > >I believe the 68000 was a 16 bit processor (externally) but handled 32 bits >internally. This made it a kind of bastard processor since it had a 16 bit data >bus but operated on 32 bit words inside. The 68020 was a real 32 bit processor >(in/out). I studied/worked with cpu's many years ago and I rember that the data >bus being either 16 bits or 32 bits did not determine the amount of memory it >could address. That is dependent on the number of address lines it had which >could be any number the designers decided were required. And of course in the >binary system the amount of memory it could address was 2^X with "X" being the >number of address lines available. >Jim You are right, but if you say "it was a 16bit processor" that means to me you also mean internally, which is - as you say now - not true. I looked at it from a programmers point of view. And then I had the internal 32bit to work with. Yes, the data bus was 16bit. I did not say something against not being 32bit externally. I thought my text was not misleading...still thinking it. But don't worry, Jim, it was not an affront, just a detail. 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.