Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:47:45 01/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2003 at 01:58:01, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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 Why don't you study Mckinley a bit before popping off? a VLIW machine does _not_ directly compare to a 4-way super-scalar processor, which is what the alpha is. You pick two numbers, one is larger than the other, and you assume the larger is better. Two people buy a pair of pants each. One has a 32" waist, the other has a 40" waist. Which person is _smarter_? bigger is _not_ the same thing as "better". Mckinley is definitely good. It is definitely _not_ as good, clock for clock, as the 21264. Future versions might be. > >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! > If you don't fit in cache, you will run slower. _period_. So your point totally escapes me... >> >>> >>>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.