Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 09:58:07 03/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 18, 2003 at 23:11:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 18, 2003 at 20:22:33, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>This exact discussion has taken place here at least twice before. I'm not sure >>why Bob persists with his 120ns number, but no amount of convincing or data is >>going to change his mind. > > >Would you care to post some _exact_ data that disproves 120ns? Did you see >Matt's number in the post parallel to yours? Using current DDR ram speeds? > >So your "no amount of convincing" leaves me cold. "no amount of data" has yet >been presented to show any machine with < 100ns latency. Feel free to disprove >it but post your code. Any old sloppy C code won't do, the code has to be >written to test latency, not prefetching or cache reuse. I used registered DDR which is slower, and being on SMP it will also be slower. It is conceivable that someone has ~100 ns latency. I'll try running the benchmark later on my nForce 2 board w/pc2100 CL 2.5 non-registered ram. -Matt
This page took 0.01 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.