Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 17:29:19 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
I would not trust POWER4 SPECint number too much. It was obtained at a multi-CPU system with shared L3 cache when all CPUs but one were idle, so that one CPU actually could use 16*8 == 128Mb of L3 cache. I doubt anybody ever will use similar system for single-process calculations. Eugene On March 26, 2002 at 17:24:45, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On March 26, 2002 at 14:29:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>If a 64 bits processor isn't faster than a 32 bits processor the processor >>is nothing more than a bad joke of course. > >Why is that? You might as well say any processor that's not the fastest in the >world is a bad joke. I don't see why the datapath width matters. And you're >saying "faster" now instead of "clocked higher." If you want to talk faster, the >POWER4 posts higher SPECint numbers than all current 32-bit processors. > >>>No matter how hard you backpedal, you're not going to get out of your idiot >>>statement that "not a single 64 bits processor is clocked *near* 32 bits >>>processors." >> >>I'm very right here. fastest 32 bits processor which i can buy is >>clocked at 2.4Ghz now. Fastest 64 bits processor (let's not even >>mention its insane price) is the power4 or something 1.3Ghz if >>i remember well? > >You said "32 bits processors," not the fastest 32-bit processor. The POWER4, at >1.3GHz, is most certainly clocked *near* (your word) the 1.7GHz Athlon, which is >a perfectly good 32-bit processor. > >-Tom
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.