Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:39:30 10/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2002 at 14:18:31, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On October 02, 2002 at 11:56:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Most supercomputer processors are stupid alpha's or stupid other cpu's >>which run >> a) at lower Mhz speeds >> b) give lower performance > >Why "stupid" Alpha? Lower performance than what? McKinley? No. The 1.25GHz Alpha >is 30% faster (SPECint) than Intel's predictions for McKinley, and these >predictions were made before Intel had to scale back McKinley's clock speed. > >>But now let's look it from supercomputing viewpoint. That McKinley CAN be put >>in most supercomputers. A k7 never will. So from supercomputing viewpoint > >There's an Athlon computer in the Top 500 supercomputer list. Besides, the >Athlon was never meant to be a supercomputer CPU. The Opteron is. > >Besides, why do you care about what CPUs are in supercomputers? Are you going to >go buy a supercomputer? > >-Tom If i say a mckinley is a good cpu i mean "it is good for a supercomputer cpu". Of course i can't afford this incredible cpu myself. I go myself for a dual K7. that's all i can afford.
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.