Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 09:36:02 05/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2002 at 12:00:34, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 27, 2002 at 11:47:15, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On May 27, 2002 at 10:54:45, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On May 27, 2002 at 09:39:29, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>In computerchess AMD is anything but beaten. We compare that right now >>>with K7s of 0.18 micron technology which run "only" 1.73Ghz. >>> >>>Soon also 0.13 micron technology will get released and then >>>the K7 also will run 2.53Ghz soon. It will take intel years >>>to move on to smaller technology than 0.13, not to mention >>>AMD. >>> >>>bottomline is that no good testing has taken place. only >>>INTEL compiled versions are compared here. They're not compared >>>with AMD optimized versions simply so far. Bob seems not awake yet,Also please >>>understand that the P4 2.53Ghz is the maximum they can pull >>>out of the 0.13 micron technology. >>>so an AMD optimized crafty we still have to wait for a bit. >>> >>>>It took Intel quite a bit to finally beat AMD, but for how many years Intel has >>>>been behind AMD and how many months it will take before AMD climb back into >>>>number one? It is just a matter of months, but right now it is also a matter of >>>>how much performance you get for every $ dollar, and in this comparison AMD >>>>still leads. >>>> >>>>Jorge. >> >> >>Please....You said, "Also please understand that the P4 2.53Ghz is the maximum >>they can pull out of the 0.13 micron technology." >> >>Also, I quote, "It will take intel years to move on to smaller technology than >>0.13, not to mention AMD." > >>That is the biggest load of crap I've heard yet! > >not really. it takes years to open new production factories. planning >must be done years ahead already. Ya Think?? > >>The P-4 on the 0.13 micron process, has the potential to exceed 5Ghz easily, >>maybe even 10Ghz! > >Not really, just ask how much watt the P4 at 2.53 generates and how >much watt it eats and you will soon realize that they might try >to clock the sucking part of the processor higher, but that won't >speed them up much. Nonsense.. keep abreast of intels technology, their tranistors are more advanced and run cooler than AMD. AMD are _not_ more advanced than Intel. > >They need a complete redesign of the cpu, as the L1 is completely >integrated into the cpu in order to get faster. That's extreem, however I agree they need to develope the processor further and I'm certain they will, the P-4 is in it's infancy. > >>The P-4 is still under developement and by the time they reduce it to a .09 and >>.06 micron process, and they will, it will hit speeds of 20Ghz+ maybe 30Ghz+ and >>all this by 2005 to 2007! > >Even if you clock the P4 to 40 Ghz it will be kicked by a 1Ghz McKinley. Really? > >Pressing a different sticker onto it won't speed itup. Of course >20Ghz is something out of reach and we won't see 0.06 micron soon. 5 years or less. > >2005 is still 3 years ahead. Who knows what happens in the meantime? Right and Intel won't sit idle while AMD strives ahead. > >You really believe the current P4 is really faster than the current K7, >not to mention the K7s that are getting shipped soon hopefully? It's faster overall than the K7's currently on the market. > >>Stop making false claims. Slater has done some very good work here and invested >>alot of time and money for everyone here to get some comparative results, and >>you shit in his face! Shame on you! >>TM > >With reason we shit on him. > >I prefer to discuss only computerchess here, but to really shit on >his face, let's say his FPS test is complete nonsense. That has little to do with computerchess Vincent. And Slater is contributing to computerchess with his experiment. No reason to shit on him but you do it with pleasure. > >Use the fastest graphics card you can get for such a test. Like >geforce 4 or whatever is fastest now. That's not computerchess. > >Because with old stupid cards the test is not accurate. > >I'm amazed to hear he needs fast graphics and rendering with a sucking >graphics card. > >Even my old P3-800 with a stupid graphics card is faster than what he has! > All this is has nothing to do with computerchess. > Then he tested crafty, but compared 2 compiles of intel c++ compiler. >Amazingly he has intel c++ 5.01 at home, but not msvc 6.0 sp4 procpack >or whatever that's non-intel. > >That's not a fair compare. Maybe....let him set that up but I doubt you're going to see any great difference. > >It's like: "i want to know what is best chessprogram, so i asked >chessbase what they find best chessprogram, so i tell you now what >they showed me and will present that as the truth!" Whatever. > >Best regards, >Vincent I love your lack of sincerity. TM
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.