Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 07:51:53 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 10:37:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >my argument is that the big and advanced branch prediction of the >alpha and the 4 instructions versus 3 of the alpha and the huge >L1 and L2 caches of it, add to that cheating on specbench; all that >together brings 33% speedup compared to a 32 bits processor. > >I do not see the 32 to 64 bits speedup for the alpha at all. For sure >not a factor 2 as claimed at some places. But you keep comparing a 1.6 GHz K7 to a 1 GHz Alpha, naturally that will even things out. But the Hammer won't be running at 1 GHz. >If you claim 10-15% that's already a far smaller claim than other >claims i saw here, majority is still claiming factor 2 to my amazement. > >Truth is that it is way harder to clock a 64 bits processor at 3Ghz >than it is to clock a 32 bits processor at 3Ghz. Yep, that's where I have to agree with you, it might be that the Hammer will end up running 500-1000 MHz slower than the cheaper 32-bit chips, at least in the beginning. But 32-bit won't stay around forever. Actually the original post only said 10-15%, but compared to what? I just assumed is was a K7 32-bit chip at the same clock speed. >We will see when we can afford processors that are 64 bits AND doing >that faster than 32 bits equivalents. Most bang for the buck is a different discussion.... -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.