Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 11:57:13 08/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2003 at 11:12:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 03, 2003 at 06:14:06, Bo Persson wrote: > >>On August 02, 2003 at 18:22:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On August 02, 2003 at 09:15:26, Bo Persson wrote: >>> >>>>On August 01, 2003 at 14:13:18, Kim Roper Jensen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 01, 2003 at 14:00:18, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I see quite different result on AMD64 when Crafty is compiled by 64-bit Visual >>>>>>C. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>Eugene >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sorry for asking but what did you see ?? :) >>>> >>>> >>>>A non-disclosure agreement in his employment contract? :-) >>>> >>>>I'm sure we will see the numbers about 2 seconds after the compiler is released. >>> >>>Not really. What you need first is a windows version that can run the stuff 64 >>>bits native at opteron. >> >>Yes, of course. Do you care to make a guess on what MS is using their Opteron >>compiler for. :-) > >I guess they are working hard and basic problem is not only that m$ is 32 bits >in some respects (file systems and such already long period ago 64 bits in 1995) >but especially that their kernel stuff is written in assembly. > >That's one of the reasons why the kernel is much faster practically than linux >for applications (if i put of old diep versions which aren't NUMA 2 processes to >search at a single cpu machine then it runs *way* faster on NT, about factor 2 >to 4 than under linux kernel). > >So using their own compiler for their own kernel is not exactly what they can >do. > >A big challenge of opteron is that it is NUMA. That is not new challenge -- please go to MSDN web site and search for "NUMA". You may be surprised. Thanks, Eugene >I am sure m$ will be very happy supporting the AMD platforms. Competition in the >hardware branche is good for microsoft. So in the highest levels of the >organisations the x86-64 platforms will have a lot of support. > >Even if microsoft wouldn't want to support it, they still MUST support it >because x86 is history within a few years and we all will be running x86-64 >platforms only. Either with intel OR amd sticker. > >I guess even the biggest cpu amateurs will understand by now that intel is >developing their own x86-64 processor generations. Perhaps even giving it a 'p4' >sticker though it's an entirely new core. > >The only thing we do not know is *when* they will release their x86-64 cpu's. >AMD simply has advantage there now. > >We can very shortly describe the x86-64 architecture. Cheap. High clockable and >superior to everything out there including itanium. Especially superior to >itanium. > >I'm running at a cpu or 64 now (itanium2-madison 1.3Ghz 3MB) and they are great >for the highend but a joke even when compared to x86 for the average user. > >Intel plans to mass produce itaniums for the 'low-end' market have been put into >the fridge a long while ago. The only reason intel is continuing this processor >now (seemingly) is because they probably can't go back. Or perhaps they wait >until they have x86-64 cpu's available. > >How can GCC 2.96 without profile recompilation be just 15% slower than intel c++ >7.0 using profile information (prof_use) at the itanium platform? > >The problem of the itanium platform is they can't clock it high despite working >for years already at that problem, it is too expensive, and it is impossible to >write software for it. > >Even the current generations of supercomputers with itaniums that get delivered >are missing major software support for it. Like crucial fortran libraries. > >This where > 60% of the total system time of supercomputers goes to gflops used >by fortran libraries. > >If you add up the picture then it is a matter of time before the x86-64 will >dominate everything. > >However it is sad to realize that most likely the linux world will be too late >again. Despite that microsoft must convert their assembly libraries to new >opteron assembly, we know they must be very far already with that conversion. > >This where the linux plans to write a NUMA kernel for kernel 2.6 have been just >defined a few weeks ago. Not to mention the years it will take to carry out an >effective implementation. > >For those who still do not understand what i'm talking about. When you have more >than 1 opteron processor, so a dual opteron or even more processors, then it is >of crucial importance that the kernel can run locally on each kernel for the >jobs that can be done locally. > >Local memory at opteron is way faster than global memory. > >In fact the opteron asks for a cc-NUMA operating system which until recently was >only getting used by very big non-real time supercomputer systems. > >I would not be surprised if microsoft is years sooner in releasing a version >that works well than the linux community, despite that everyone will understand >that bugfixing assembly code is a lot harder than fixing a bit of C code. > >Best regards, >Vincent > >> >>Bo Persson >>bop2@telia.com
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.