Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 22:58:01 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2003 at 01:46:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 31, 2002 at 23:22:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On December 31, 2002 at 23:15:53, Dan Andersson wrote: >> >>>The 8-way chipset was the product of another company. They canned it. And then >>>AMD was already on the way with the Hammer. So they could not be bothered to do >>>it themselves. And the easy out disappeared when Intel got the Alpha processor >>>infrastructure. >>> >>>MvH Dan Andersson >> >>thanks, intel really seems to have put those alpha guys to work. That >>McKinley blows away the 21264 for me *bigtime*. > >I would bet you have _never_ touched a 21264. It was marginally faster for >me than mckinley. Tim had a 600mhz machine that hit 800K with crafty. Wrong. Itanium2 blows the 21264 away for me. It's just that crafty cannot profit too much from the next major advantage McKinley offers offers over the 21264 for IPC: Look to this table: McKinley 6 instructions a cycle (bundles) Alpha 4 instructions a cycle If your thing is a bit less dependant upon caches and more upon IPC then you of course also get faster on the McKinley. Add some knowledge i'd say and you'll see! > >> >>Very impressive for a 2nd version of the Itanium. >> >>Can't wait to see how the I3 is going to be. If such processors get >>SMT on chip it is going to be perhaps really very well performing. > >SMT doesn't fit Itanium very well... > > >> >>Imagine they make it 4 threads a cpu. In which case i could run at a >>128 processor partition already like 500 processes easily!!
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.