Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:04:27 03/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 2003 at 12:58:07, Matt Taylor wrote: >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 Actually I believe all our duals use registered DDR ram also, which probably explains those near-150 ns numbers I have seen for the DDR machines. 150 is way non-impressive.
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.