Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:24:16 03/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2004 at 15:15:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. >> >>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... > >Latest itanium compiler 1.5Ghz 6MB L3. Compiler used from 2004. > base score : 1241 >Note this is the HP compiler which hardly anyone uses. No one in government is. >They all use the way slower intel compiler. The supercomputers of the government >aren't HP ones. HP isn't delivering big enough systems. > >But even then. Let's compare this 6 instructions a cycle Itanium2 with crafty at >K7 a 32 bits doing 3 instructions a cycle max: Flap flap flap flap. Flappety flap. Flap. Flap. flap-flap-flap. No matter how much hand-flapping you do, you made the original statement. Eugene supplied data that showed that clock for clock, the Itanium was 50% faster with Crafty. Nothing more, nothing less. No flappety-flap either. > >http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cpu2000-20030505-02154.html >K7 at 2.2Ghz getting: 1324 > >So after concluding that itanium is hell of a lot slower than K7, we can look to >the IPC. flappety-flap. Who cares. You said something that was simply shown to be wrong. > >The 6 instructions a clock from the itanium2 @ 64 bits delivers : > 1241/1324 * 2.2Ghz/1.5Ghz = 37% faster speed > >So years of work at compiler still didn't improve much from my 33% statement >that the 4 instructions a clock 21264 1Ghz delivered a few years ago. > >So the move from 32 bits to 64 bits can not have contributed more than a few % >of speed to crafty. > >Best regards, >Vincent "can not have contributed -> flappety flap." One of these days, I will have access to an opteron where I can do a 32 bit and 64 bit compile with _everything_ else constant. Then we will _really_ know what 32 -> 64 bit gives. It will be more than "a few %".
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.