Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Introducing "No-Moore's Law"

Author: Jeremiah Penery

Date: 16:56:12 03/10/03

Go up one level in this thread

On March 09, 2003 at 22:10:06, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On March 09, 2003 at 01:26:33, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>On March 08, 2003 at 23:58:37, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>On March 08, 2003 at 14:52:02, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>>>By selling them side-by-side, Dell is comparing them.  But Pentium3 is not quite
>>>>a Pentium4 in fact...
>>>And nobody assumes that.
>>People assume P3=P4 (in terms of compatibility) just as much as they assume
>Maybe some do.  But I'd suspect most don't although the assumption that
>executables compiled and running on a PIII will also run on a PIV is a
>good assumption.

I'm quite sure that almost everyone assumes they are 100% compatible.  Some kind
of poll could be useful, otherwise both of us are just guessing.

>>>But clearly if someone compares a chip to a PII,
>>>the implication is that they are equivalent.  Otherwise the comparison is
>>>not very informative.
>>I've seen P4 compared to 486, but that doesn't mean anyone should assume they're
>>totally compatible.  Just like you can compare an Alpha to a SPARC.
>>But the P3-P4 comparison is much more relevant.  They're placed side-by-side
>>_all the time_, and very clearly is it implied that they're equal except that
>>the P4 is clocked much higher.  The average buyer is NOT going to know the
>>difference, any more than they knew the difference between a P2 and a K6.
>Did you see an advertisement where someone was trying to convince you to
>buy over the other?  I doubt it.

When P3 and P4 existed concurrently, every single ad where Intel advertised the
P4, they were trying to get you to buy P4 over P3.  Of course they didn't
explicitly say so, but I don't ever remember seeing an AMD ad where they
explicitly mentioned an Intel chip either.  The P3 was, for many things, faster
than the higher clocked P4.  Intel prematurely killed the P3 because they wanted
to sell P4s, and P3 could have made P4 look bad.

>>>It was the _users_ that assumed that PII = K6 since AMD magazine publicity
>>>certainly implied it if not outright claimed it.
>>They imply that P3=P4 too, in terms of compatibility, but they're not completely
>Again, it depends.  If I do a target=P3, I would expect that to run on a PIV.

If I do target=Pentium, I'd expect it to run on a K6.  That's basically the
comparison you're making there.

>And most likely if I do a target=p4 it would run on a P3 although I can
>certainly think of reasons why it wouldn't.

Most of the time it would, just as most of the time K6 would run P2 executables.
 The only difference I'm aware of (for K6/P2) is CMOV.  For P3/P4 the difference
is SSE2.

>But Intel doesn't market the P3 to be compatible with the P4.

No.  They market P4 to be compatible with P3.

>>Why don't you use Sun's compiler, which is really fast for SPARC anyway?
>Because we don't buy it.  It's not cheap and we have so many gcc-based machines
>we felt the compatibility between compilers was better than the cost of buying
>Sun's compiler.  We used to have it years ago, and yes, I found it to be a
>bit better than GCC.  But eventually GCC started producing code that was as fast
>as Sun's so we dropped sun's compiler.

Seems GCC doesn't do so well anymore. :p

Oh well, I was more interested in the sales numbers (which I haven't yet seen
:)than the benchmarks anyway.

This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.