Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:43:32 02/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2004 at 13:30:18, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On February 16, 2004 at 12:04:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 16, 2004 at 11:11:14, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>On February 16, 2004 at 10:49:41, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/7965000.htm >>>> >>>>"Intel has been secretly working on technology that would add the functions of a >>>>64-bit chip to its standard chips. By turning a standard Intel 32-bit chip into >>>>a 64-bit chip, a computer can handle more data-intensive jobs, such as running >>>>massive databases. Since AMD has been successful with its 64-bit offering, Intel >>>>has been under pressure by customers who are looking at other options for the >>>>low-end servers." >>>> >>>> >>>>Finally...the Itanic has sunk. >>> >>>It is about time because the Dual Opteron is much faster at the moment: >>>http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=opt248vsxeon32a&page=5 >> >> >>You are comparing apples and oranges. There is not a lot of difference in >>performance of opteron and recent itaniums. Except opteron runs old x86 stuff >>very fast while itanium does not. But for real 64 bit applications, compiled by >>64 bit compilers, running on 64 bit operating systems, _both_ are very good... > > >I wasn't comparing apples and oranges. At the moment a Dual Opteron is much >faster than a non itaniums ( Dual Xeon do NOT support 64 bit applications :-) > >Jorge You _replied_ to a comment about the Itanium. "Itanic" --> "Itanium"... I happen to like the Opteron, but the NUMA memory system has some issues that have to be handled to avoid penalties. Nothing is really free.
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.