Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 16:41:22 04/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2003 at 17:41:17, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 21, 2003 at 14:46:27, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>>Not really. Processors have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm sure you could >>>find some pathological code that runs much slower on the Athlon than the P4. >> >>If you find anything, let me know. So far I know of nothing. I however know >>of *MANY* things that run pitiful on a p4. > >IIRC, a game of life thing I wrote a few months ago ran 2-3x slower on my AXP >2000+ than on my 2.2GHz P4. Also I think the P4 has won pretty much every media >encoding benchmark I've seen, often by large margins. Thats also bandwidth intensive, and it just so happens most pages run the bios timings at the absolute lowest setting making the Athlons bandwidth horrible. Pick ANY multimedia program, grab a P4 and lets benchmark against my system. I've already done the benchmarks, as I said in a previous email.. properly configured Athlons (non-gimped bioses) will beat a P4 any day. Any time you'd like me to back it up let me know. :) >>Intel C is much faster than gcc and slightly faster than VC in my tests. I find >>Intel C 5.0.1 faster for Athlons but what AMD used for the testing was the >>latest, 7.0. > >Yeah, so the question is, does 64-bit gcc Crafty run faster than 32-bit VC or >Intel C Crafty? If the answer is no, then we're going to be waiting for a while >for x86-64 to improve anything. Considering x86-64 Windows will be out sometime >this year, I imagine x86-64 VC will be, too. I doubt MS would produce an OS and >not give users a way to write native programs for it. > >-Tom No idea about the compiler stuff, I didn't do the optimizations or compiles.
This page took 0.02 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.