Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz?

Author: Vincent Lejeune

Date: 05:19:55 04/19/03

one more link, 11 pages, very slow server :

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64.html

On April 19, 2003 at 07:46:47, Vincent Lejeune wrote:

>No bad news this time, the opteron systems will be out the 21st of april !!
>
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9039
>http://www.amdzone.com/
>
>
>
>On April 19, 2003 at 01:02:15, Pavel Blokhine wrote:
>
>>On April 18, 2003 at 23:37:04, Brian Richardson wrote:
>>
>>>On April 18, 2003 at 21:58:06, Jonas Bylund wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Thanks. But so far, nobody has told me if it was a faster machine than the dual
>>>>>Xeon 2.8Ghz...which was the thing i wanted to know.
>>>>
>>>>Yes dual AMD 2600+ would be faster.
>>>>
>>>>Jonas
>>>
>>>I have a dual AMD system and the SMP scalability efficiency is at best about
>>>1.7x vs 1.9x for the Intel systems, IIRC, so the systems would be about equal if
>>>the 2600+ CPUs were each about as fast as the 3GHz Intels.
>>>
>>>Why not wait a few weeks for the newer AMD Opteron (also 64 bit)?
>>
>>
>>How many weeks do we have to wait? Isn't it delayed already?

Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Vincent Lejeune 07:06:01 04/20/03
- Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Charles Worthington 15:58:08 04/21/03
  - Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Pavel Blokhine 22:42:22 04/21/03
Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Pavel Blokhine 06:44:52 04/19/03
- Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Vincent Lejeune 06:47:36 04/19/03
  - Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Vincent Lejeune 05:25:21 04/20/03
    - Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Pavel Blokhine 07:46:28 04/20/03
      - Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Aaron Gordon 09:25:52 04/20/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Pavel Blokhine 09:44:31 04/20/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Aaron Gordon 02:05:08 04/21/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Tom Kerrigan 04:19:50 04/21/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Aaron Gordon 07:05:15 04/21/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Tom Kerrigan 11:36:37 04/21/03
        
        >1 pipeline stage for L1D access? Anthony Cozzie 00:36:33 04/22/03
        
        Re: >1 pipeline stage for L1D access? Tom Kerrigan 12:46:11 04/22/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Jay Urbanski 18:50:05 04/21/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Tom Kerrigan 12:41:44 04/22/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Jay Urbanski 20:03:32 04/23/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Robert Hyatt 08:45:41 04/22/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Aaron Gordon 11:46:27 04/21/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Tom Kerrigan 14:41:17 04/21/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Matt Taylor 22:36:02 04/23/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Aaron Gordon 16:41:22 04/21/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Tom Kerrigan 12:40:47 04/22/03
        
        P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Aaron Gordon 17:41:22 04/22/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Matt Taylor 18:41:22 04/22/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Eugene Nalimov 18:20:15 04/22/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Aaron Gordon 19:09:16 04/22/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Tom Kerrigan 21:43:27 04/22/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Aaron Gordon 04:15:18 04/23/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Keith Evans 22:01:37 04/22/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Matt Taylor 19:08:41 04/23/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Keith Evans 20:27:49 04/23/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Matt Taylor 22:20:00 04/23/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Keith Evans 10:01:04 04/24/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Matt Taylor 17:02:33 04/24/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Keith Evans 17:23:35 04/24/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Robert Hyatt 10:45:23 04/24/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Aaron Gordon 13:59:37 04/24/03
        
        Re: P4 gets blown to pieces, again. Robert Hyatt 07:34:10 04/25/03
        
        AMD underclocking? no Tom Kerrigan 18:11:59 04/26/03
        
        Some benchmarks... Aaron Gordon 19:25:47 04/26/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Tom Kerrigan 11:50:27 04/27/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Aaron Gordon 13:32:10 04/27/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Tom Kerrigan 23:38:17 04/28/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Aaron Gordon 07:48:24 04/29/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Tom Kerrigan 11:20:08 04/29/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Aaron Gordon 11:36:39 04/29/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Robert Hyatt 12:00:51 04/29/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Aaron Gordon 14:45:25 04/29/03
        
        Corsair tech responded.. Aaron Gordon 10:13:02 04/30/03
        
        Re: Corsair tech responded.. Keith Evans 10:47:06 04/30/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Keith Evans 14:51:19 04/29/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Aaron Gordon 15:04:21 04/29/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Johan Hutting 06:56:43 04/30/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Aaron Gordon 07:53:14 04/30/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Robert Hyatt 08:06:43 04/30/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Aaron Gordon 08:23:00 04/30/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Keith Evans 19:52:42 04/26/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Aaron Gordon 22:38:15 04/26/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Keith Evans 22:52:41 04/26/03
        
        Re: Some benchmarks... Aaron Gordon 07:40:10 04/27/03
        
        -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for that Keith Evans 12:04:58 04/28/03
        
        Re: -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for that Aaron Gordon 16:47:57 04/28/03
        
        Re: -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for t Keith Evans 18:17:38 04/28/03
        
        Re: -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for t Aaron Gordon 18:27:34 04/28/03
        
        Re: -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for t Keith Evans 18:42:51 04/28/03
        
        Re: -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for t Aaron Gordon 20:06:56 04/28/03
        
        Re: -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for t Keith Evans 20:50:10 04/28/03
        
        Re: -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for that Jeremiah Penery 15:46:24 04/28/03
        
        Re: -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for t Keith Evans 16:00:28 04/28/03
        
        Re: -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for t Jeremiah Penery 18:22:08 04/28/03
        
        Re: -75 part not rated for CL=2 133 MHz clock rate. Need -75Z part for t Keith Evans 18:48:07 04/28/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Aaron Gordon 13:30:33 04/22/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Pavel Blokhine 13:46:14 04/22/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Aaron Gordon 16:29:07 04/22/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Drexel,Michael 14:26:43 04/22/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Pavel Blokhine 05:46:35 04/21/03
        
        Re: Faster than dual Xeon 2.8GHz? Vincent Lejeune 17:16:40 04/20/03

This page took 0.03 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.