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 0.01 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.