Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 03:46:20 06/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2004 at 05:13:31, Uri Blass wrote: >In the following table you can see that the itanium2 is better than the opteron >inspite having less processors > >see http://www.top500.org/list/2004/06 > >Itanium2 1.5 is place 9 in the list when opteron2.2 is place 10 in the list >inspite of the fact that opteron2.2 ghz has 2560 processors against 1936 >proccesors of Itanium2. > >The person who I talked with him tell me that there is already Itanium2 1.6 and >1.7 and he claims that the Itanium is new technology and the only reason to use >the opteron and not the Itanium in the world championship is probably money. Why do you always post this nonsense here? The Itanium 2 isn´t "new technology". http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q2/cpu2000-20040528-03064.asc http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q2/cpu2000-20040525-03060.asc Scroll down and compare the results for Crafty. > >He claims that for the same money I can get better things from AMD but the best >that I can get if money is not a problem is from Intel. > >I want to know if this is really the case? > >I can add that I will not get the opteron for the world championship. >They told me that they cannot get the opteron148 or opteron248 and the options >that they can get for me is opteron246(1.4ghz) or Opteron142(1.6ghz) > >I decided that these options are not acceptable and the AMD3000 (2.0 ghz) is >probably better. Right, the A64 2.0 Ghz is way better. Provided that you don't plan to go SMP in the near future of course. Michael > >Uri
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.