Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:26:44 10/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2002 at 16:55:04, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On October 02, 2002 at 16:15:36, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>It lists the 6000 line as P3 Xeons Bob:
>
>http://www.dell.com/us/en/esg/topics/products_benchmark_pedge_benchmarking.htm
>
>Dell PowerEdge 1650 1810 1.4 GHz Pentium III
>Fujitsu Siemens Primergy L200 1660 1.4 GHz Pentium III
>Dell PowerEdge 1650 1588 1.4 GHz Pentium III
>AMD Tyan Thunder K7 1510 1800+ Athlon MP (1.53GHz)
>Dell PowerEdge 2550 1454 1.26 GHz Pentium III
>HP Netserver LP 1000r 1420 1.26 GHz Pentium III
>Fujitsu Siemens Primergy H400 1186 700 MHz Pentium III Xeon
>IBM Netfinity 6000R 1182 700 MHz Pentium III Xeon
>IBM Netfinity 7600 1182 700 MHz Pentium III Xeon
>Dell PowerApp.web 120 1159 933 MHz Pentium III
>
Go to the poweredge 6600 as I told you. PIV xeons running at your choice
of 1.4ghz, 1.5ghz or 1.6ghz...
Those machines above are _duals_ by the way. We are talking about _quads_
if you recall. Just go to www.dell.com, hit "servers" and then look for
the poweredge 6600. Hit "specs". Read and weep.
Hit "order one" if you want...
>
>Actually i receive a brochure from Dell each month. No quad P4s of course
>yet, or i would have had the brochure already. I am seeing however a lot
>of tuatalin servers or something. That's 1.4Ghz P3 , NOT p4 :)
Learn More
Up to 4 Intel® XeonTM processors MP at 1.4GHz, 1.5GHz, and
1.6GHz with
Hyper-Threading support
The above is right off their web site. I don't really care whether those
are PIII or PIV. The topic was quads at > 900mhz. I said I had seen one
at 1.6ghz, and that a university has a cluster of them at that speed. You
said no 1.6ghz quads existed. They obviously do. Whether they are PIII or
PIV is irrelevant to _that_ discussion. The 2.2ghz quad _also_ exists somewhere
because it was discussed on the SMP mailing list. And more than one had access
to them...
>
>http://www.dell.com/us/en/esg/topics/esg_pedge_rackmain_servers_1_pedge_6650.htm
>
>I guess you mean this. that's P3s not P4s actually. They just managed to
>clock them to 1.4Ghz. The P4 however clocks to like 2.8 Ghz nowadays :)
So. We were talking about 1.6ghz quads. You said there were none. I said
there are.
>
>The P4-Xeon clocks to 2.4Ghz easly and perhaps already 2.8Ghz (if i remember
>well the p4-xeon at 2.8ghz is announced already) that 1.4-1.6Ghz they
>quote is a new type of P3s, not P4s!!!!
So? It is a quad. So is the quad 2.2 and I don't think that is a PIII although
PIII vs PIV doesn't matter to the discussion at hand. quad 1.6ghz boxes are
for sale _right now_ as I said.
>
>>On October 02, 2002 at 15:08:36, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>>On October 01, 2002 at 16:16:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>No shop sells quad p4's bob.
>>
>>
>>Vincent... I did a quick web search and found a _bunch_ of 'em, contrary
>>to your rambling nonsense. The university of Buffalo has four dell quad
>>xeon machines, 1.6 ghz / 1mb cache processors. All you have to do is
>>look first, and open your mouth _later_. Then you don't have that problem
>>of having to extract your foot from way down your throat nearly so often.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I don't know where you have the guts to simply put lies here.
>>>
>>>Note that there doesn't exist a publicly released chipset even
>>>which supports it.
>>
>>I have a hard time trying to decide whether the right term is moron,
>>idiot, dumbass, or what. But why don't you visit www.dell.com, look
>>at the poweredge 6600 server, and tell me how many cpus it has, and
>>what their clock frequencies are. Then come back and appologize for
>>your total lack of knowing what you are talking about?
>>
>>I told you one of those was shipped here by mistake. I saw it with my
>>own eyes. The university of buffalo has a cluster of those machines.
>>
>>And "they don't exist" according to Vincent?
>>
>>:)
>>
>>What an idiot....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>All there is, is failed experimental stuff.
>>
>>I suspect that would be a surprise to Dell???
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>as you indicate all your machines are quad P3s. You probably
>>>don't even know what a P4 looks like :)
>>
>>
>>Sure do. It isn't a slot-based processor. Had one here, looked at it
>>carefully before shipping it on to the right person...
>>
>>I don't think you know what _reality_ looks like. I'm only glad I am me and
>>not you...
>>
>>Try again when you have something _reasonable_ to say. But then again, that
>>might condemn you to months of silence, based on the above comments... I like
>>the "if vincent can't touch it, it doesn't exist." approach to life.
>>
>>But just because _you_ can't find one doesn't mean that _I_ am "lying". I think
>>it pretty obvious who has the history of that particular negative trait...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>On October 01, 2002 at 09:34:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On September 30, 2002 at 15:05:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On September 30, 2002 at 02:13:54, Aaron Gordon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On September 29, 2002 at 23:43:26, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1. I didn't see anyone post _any_ 1.7x number for AMD when I asked for them
>>>>>>>>a week or two back.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It was in a seperate post. Slate benched a number of the latest binaries I
>>>>>>>compiled with automatic parallelization.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2. I don't see how the binary is going to affect this at all. You should
>>>>>>>>get the same ratio of single to dual whether you use a fully-optimized binary
>>>>>>>>or one with no optimizing at all. Since the dual speed is relative to the
>>>>>>>>single cpu version, the base NPS is unimportant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perhaps you should test this yourself if you can. Slate got 1.4x with your
>>>>>>>binary, 1.7x with mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, actually I am using a quad intel machine. Where are the quad AMDs? Why
>>>>>>>>do you think there are none? Think about "scaling"...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clawhammers & Opterons will be out in a few months and there has already been
>>>>>>>pictures posted of dual/quad Hammers. Also if I recall correctly
>>>>>>>my single Athlon is faster than your Quad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I wouldn't argue that point. My quad 700 is getting around 1.6M nodes per
>>>>>>second using the intel compiler. However, a quad itanium-2 shows a lot more
>>>>>>promise, if raw speed is the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm more interested in a slower quad than a faster dual, because the 4 processor
>>>>>>machine is more difficult to use efficiently, and that is what the parallel
>>>>>>search is all about.
>>>>>
>>>>>I saved this great statement to harddisk :)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :) My board + chip now days costs
>>>>>>>$154 together. I'm sure it would still cost over $500 to build that quad you
>>>>>>>have which is slower. :) The gap would be huge if you drop a 2600+ in here and
>>>>>>>even more so with a 2600+ at 2.5GHz. A quad may 'sound' nice but if all the cpus
>>>>>>>are slow then whats the point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are some fast quads out. I've seen linux output from a quad 2.2 intel
>>>>>>machine (xeon-based). There are plenty of 1.5-1.6ghz quads around, but the
>>>>>>processors are not compatible with my older MB.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is known that intel tried to produce a few quads for experimental reasons,
>>>>>but i do not know a single quad P4 which i can buy in a shop. Even if it is
>>>>>a 'slow' 1.6ghz quad :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I found several. I just had a quad 1.6 machine shipped to me by mistake and
>>>>sent it
>>>>on to the right end user. I have _seen_ actual output from a quad 2.2 but I
>>>>have not
>>>>seen the machine advertised.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Also i would be pretty amazed if a quad P4 runs stable for more than
>>>>>5 minutes after booting, not to mention what happens if you write down
>>>>>'mt 4' in crafty :)
>>>>
>>>>Why? Every quad intel box I have owned has run perfectly, reliably, and
>>>>for extended periods of time. I have 9 quad 550 xeon boxes, my quad 700
>>>>xeon box, a quad 400 xeon box, and all were reliable from day 1. I also have
>>>>an old quad p6-200 that _still_ runs perfectly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Best regards,
>>>>>Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Except that I can buy a quad or 8-way P4 system, but not an AMD. And now
>>>>>>>>they get left in the dust... Not cheap of course.. But not even doable with
>>>>>>>>AMD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See above.
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.