Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 13:55:49 10/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2002 at 14:54:13, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >I do not know a single supercomputer with alpha 21264 at 1.25 Ghz. Correct >me if i'm wrong. If i browse around at top500.org i see: Well, there aren't ANY McKinleys on that list at ANY clock speed. What are you implying? >For me Mckinley is way faster than alpha. Alpha 21264c for me is >slower than K7. Not much. But still. McKinley is 33% faster. You said McKinley is 33% faster PER CLOCK than the Athlon. Sorry, but that means it sucks. >We still didn't talk about things like branch mispredictions. The alpha >has very big penalties for a branch misprediction. i don't know about How do you figure? >mckinley but seeing the results i had at the 2 cpu's i bet the mckinley >is either having less or handling it better somehow. Surely you know that IA-64 has predication? >So i don't know what you care for, but i care for what i have SEEN. I see >that the mckinley is with an edition 1.0 compiler already way faster than >any other cpu i ever have seen. Except for a 1.4GHz Athlon, apparently. >Now i don't know how hard guys like nalimov work, but obviously the >intel c++ team that made that cross compiler which i used to benchmark >diep on mckinley, they have a big disadvantage in time compared to the >alpha team who already could work on the alpha compiler for a quarter >of a century or so (?). The Alpha was released in 92... don't worry, you're only off by a factor of 2.5. -Tom
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.