Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:24:50 03/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2004 at 14:20:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 01, 2004 at 13:59:25, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On March 01, 2004 at 13:49:38, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >>>On March 01, 2004 at 12:05:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 29, 2004 at 23:38:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>>You qualify the testresults as done for SPEC as INVALID and INCORRECT? >>>> >>>>YES or NO? >>>> >>>>[bla bla removed] >>> >>>Had you stopped to drink vodka every morning? >>> >>>Please answer only YES or NO. >>> >>>[bla bla removed] >> >>So, my previous post pointed that there are questions for which you cannot >>answer "YES or NO". >> >>And here is *official* SPEC data for 1.3GHz K7 and 1.5GHz Itanium2: >> >>http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2001q4/cpu2000-20011008-01018.html >>http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q1/cpu2000-20040126-02775.html >> >>Thanks, >>Eugene > > >Please do not confuse discussions with Vincent by supplying real data. Things >stay on a more equal footing if you just make up stuff and post it here. > ><sarcasm off> > >:) For those that didn't look at the data, the 1.5ghz K7 compared to the 1.5ghz itanium shows a 50% faster speed on the Itanium. IE the K7 took 127 seconds to run the test, the Itanium took 80. Why 1.5ghz K7? Because Vincent was talking about "clock for clock" and Eugene chose to supply real data rather than barking up a hollow tree...
This page took 0.01 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.