Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:03:11 07/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 1998 at 22:56:36, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >Here's another review of what you said: > >>up to the PII/400, you begin to see a significant performance loss when compared >>to a P6/200, factoring in the 2x faster clock not giving anywhere near 2x the >>cpu performance. Xeon will. The 450 should clock in just as you'd expect with > >Now, I questioned the "not giving anywhere near 2x the cpu performance." Here's >your response: > >>>Remember, the PII L2 cache *always* runs at half the core clock speed. >>>If Crafty fit in L1/L2 cache, you *would* see a ~2x speedup. >>The PII doesn't always run at 1/2. That's what the PII/Xeon is all about, > >Uhm, wrong. > >I'd be happy to discuss the data you present to this forum, but not if your >story is going to get this screwed up. > >-Tom Then maybe you'd care to point out where the above is wrong. It is quite clear: the 400mhz PII chip would be twice as fast with crafty, *if* the PII's cache ran at 400mhz. It doesn't. It runs at 200mhz. So I fail to see where you are confused about what I wrote and why. But there is *no* misstatement in the above... simply read it in the context of the original post, comparing the P6/200 to the PII/400. I reported 1.41X on the PII/300 over the P6/200 and explained why I thought it was so. Seems perfectly clear to me. So it's not *my* story that is screwed up. Perhaps you didn't follow the discussion? I've been consistent from the beginning. Your quote above supports that.
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.