Author: Brian Richardson
Date: 12:22:10 03/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2004 at 14:24:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > Yes, but isn't the K7 a 32 bit CPU, whereas the Itanium2 is 64 bits? If so, then clock for clock is not very indicative, especially quoting a 2 1/2 year old benchmark. How about Opteron vs Itanium? >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 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.