Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:41:23 10/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2002 at 17:26:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... > It is not clear to me that intel even "mentions" P4 and xeon any longer. But the dell machines use the new Xeon MP with three levels of cache, which doesn't sound like any PIII I know of. Whether that is PIV or not I really don't care. It is still a good quad at 1.6ghz... > > > >> >>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.