Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 07:08:17 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 09:49:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On March 25, 2002 at 08:48:54, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >All i know from the hammer is that i can't buy it in the store coming >year. I can buy right now an XP2000. > >If you wanna buy a hammer, i would by the way buy a McKinley instead >with a compiler that produces optimal code for the mckinley. > >So let's focus upon processors that are for real and working right now. Why? I responded to a post[*] that claimed the 64-bit Hammer chip would only bring chess programs 10-15% speed increase. I said I expected a lot more. My reasons are that the Hammer will be introduced at around 2 GHz, and if it can deliver the same performance clock for clock as the Alpha, then is should be a lot faster than those 15%. That is that, we'll see when it comes out who was right. You argument about what is presently the fastet chip is _irrelevant_ IMO. [*]http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?219258 -S. >Let's not focus upon processors from which it is not sure whether they >are fast and even less sure when they are in the shops. the step from K6 >to K7 was big for AMD, but not nearly as big as from K7 to hammer >(unless they have a sucking design for 64 bits). > >Also the P4 on paper was a great processor, when it was released it >was a major failure. > >Nevertheless, let's focus upon what is in the shops of today. Hammer isn't >there. Just like the K7 took many years before it was actually produced. >>-S.
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.