Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 09:50:30 04/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
Itanium is not great, but it should not be "pretty bad" either. What OS and compiler had you used? GCC on Itanium is much worse than GCC on x86. IA-64 requires very smart compilers. Eugene On April 08, 2002 at 11:52:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 08, 2002 at 06:57:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 07, 2002 at 12:09:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 07, 2002 at 01:00:55, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>>Last night I was cruising the CCC archives reading over discussions on various >>>>data representation approaches in chess programs, and I came across this >>>>statement from 1999 in this post: >>>>http://www.it.ro/ccc_search/ccc.php?art_id=39708 >>>> >>>>"Just wait 5 years and see if you can find a 32 bit machine left." >>>> >>>>Well we are 2 years away from the 5 year deadline. Do you still agree with this? >>> >>>Yes. The end is "in sight". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>I'm not trying to throw old quotes back at you or anything. I'm really more >>>>curious about how much longer it will be until 64-bit machines are the norm. >>>> >>>>I'm also curious if when the time comes that 64-bit machines are the norm, if >>>>they will be on par with the Hz speeds of the 32-bit machines. For example, >>>>right now you can get a 2.1 GHZ Athlon or 2.4 GHz P4 without having to take out >>>>a loan. If you want a 64-bit Itanium, you're looking at $2,500 - $7,000 for a >>>>chip that runs at 733-800 MHz (www.pricewatch.com). So once 64-bit machines are >>>>practical from a price standpoint, will they still be at a third of the speed we >>>>can get from a 32-bit machine? >>> >>>64 bit machines can run at identical clock speeds. The issue is price. As >>>demand increases, price will go down driving performance up. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>If my data from pricewatch isn't entirely accurate please correct me. E.g. if >>>>there are other 64-bit chips that are cheaper and faster than Itanium. Heck, how >>>>much would a good 64-bit system cost today? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Russell >>> >>> >>>There are plenty of chips cheaper than Itanium and far faster... but Intel >>>is going to set the standard. The other vendors (HP, DEC/COMPAQ/whatever they >>>are today, MIPS, IBM, have been doing 64 bit chips for years. Intel is _way_ >>>behind... >> >>I am not so sure about this. Did you already try mckinley? >>6 integer units or something? >> >>that'll kick butt of course. > > >No I haven't... However I have tried the production Itanium machines and >they were pretty bad... The Alpha was the best around by a huge margin...
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.