Author: Chris Hull
Date: 13:50:29 07/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2003 at 13:03:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 03, 2003 at 05:51:51, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On July 03, 2003 at 05:31:15, Tony Werten wrote: >> >>>http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2003/07/01&pages=02&seq=3 >>> >>>Tony >> >>Interesting news. Some things the article says makes me think this is nothing to >>get excited about. >> >>"targeting the high-priced, back-end server market" - This makes me think >>"nothing new here, the Itanium has been out of the price range of everyone for >>years anyway." I can't imagine them competing with the Opteron (much less >>Athlon64) if they can't come way down in price. >> >>It says something about a lower end cpu for workstations, but the way they put >>it (maybe it's just the writer), it makes it sound (to me) that the high-end >>Itanium will still be significantly more than the Opteron, and the low-end >>Itanium will still be significantly more than the Athlon64, and that the >>really-low-end Xeon might be in the price range of the Opteron. >> >> >>"Intel servers containing eight to 128 Itanium processors..." >> >>So Bob, what is the expected speedup of Crafty on a 128-Itanium machine? :) > > >Hard to say since it is a NUMA type machine. There are lots of issues >there. Ok, this begs the question, "Can crafty be made to work on a NUMA-type cluster? How about in a messaging passing cluster using PVM or MPI?" Not just made to work but to actually see SMP like speedups, for 4/8/16/32/64 node clusters. Chris
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.