Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:18:21 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 20:29:19, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >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 > The cache _must_ be NUMA however. There is no way to have a cache with that many ports without degrading cycle time horrendously. I'll bet there is much more to this that just a bigger cache issue... > >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.