Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:24:27 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 12:07:54, Sune Fischer wrote: >On March 26, 2002 at 11:35:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>Most bang for the buck is a different discussion.... >> >>it is the only question. > >To you maybe, it _is_ a good point when it comes down to the actual purchase, >but it does not belong in a theoretical discussion of 64 vs 32 bit. > >>If intel comes out with a P5 that runs your >>program at 5Ghz and gets 2 million nodes a second, then you sure >>buy that one if the alternative is a hammer which is 64 bits and >>runs at 2Ghz and gets your program 1 million nodes a second. > >A) I'm guessing the P5 will be 4x as expensive as the Hammer by extrapolating >the current price policy from Intel. > >B) If the P5 does as poorly as the P4, it will correspond to a 3.5 GHz K7. > >So the question is, do you want a Dual 2 GHz 64-bit Hammer or a 3.5 GHz K7? :) I'll go for the dual 3.5ghz K7 MP then of course :) do you happen to have a technical overview on what the hammer is supposed to be? AMD is always doing so very secret about their things, i can find only 'rumours' and small pieces of info given out. The usual optimistic drumbeats without anything indicating it is going to be a fast CPU. >-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.