Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 20:09:20 03/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2004 at 16:35:06, Matthew Hull wrote: >On March 01, 2004 at 16:27:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 01, 2004 at 16:20:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 01, 2004 at 15:22:10, Brian Richardson 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>>Vincent quoted K7 vs Itanium. Eugene responded with data for those two >>>processors. I didn't pick them either. >>> >> >>Quote on: >> >>The speedwin from crafty when going from K7 to Itanium2, was real real small. >> >>Quote off >> >>That was What Eugene responded to. >> >>"real real small" -> 50% faster on Itanium 2. >> >>"real real small" indeed. >> >>:) > > >It is useful to remember that Vincent wields with his own mind the most awesome >power on earth, a power capable of defeating the combined strength of even 512 >processors. Don't worry against an old fraud like Hyatt i'll take any 1 to 10 hardware challenges as long as i can use decent hardware. All i need is a dual opteron. Let Hyatt show up with any platform of his choice at world champs i'd say. He can only look good at paper. Committing fraud with numbers. I guess that's how he got professor too, using those frauded numbers. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>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.