Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 12:07:47 08/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2003 at 14:57:13, Eugene Nalimov wrote: Those pages June 2003, looks pretty new to me :) >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.