i want to see those links pls!! (NT)

Article: The Battle in 64 bit Land, 2003 and Beyond
By: waitressInGaza (beenthere.delete@this.donethat.com), February 5, 2003 1:50 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
José Javier Zarate (jzarate@unav.es) on 2/5/03 wrote:
>Dear Mrs. WIG
>I read frequently your posts at Ace's. Why do you keep fighting so many so cleraly
>biased people that add so little to knowledge (there are some biased people that
>adds a lot to knowledge and understanding of a given technology)

well call it a crusade to call a spade a spade but in this case i really did want to see the links Peter derives his info from. from what i see he takes all his data from one digitimes article. thanks for the point of view =)

>Best wishes
>waitressInGaza (beenthere@donethat.com) on 2/3/03 wrote:
>>Bill Todd (billtodd@metrocast.net) on 2/3/03 wrote:
>>>Peter Gerassimoff (pgerassi@ticon.net) on 2/3/03 wrote:
>>>>FYI, Itanium3 (Madison) is only going to be 1.3GHz for the 6MB version and 1,2GHz
>>>>for the 3MB version.
>>>Have you told Intel yet? Their public statements are that Madison is going to clock at 1.5 GHz.
>>>YOur predicted SPEC scores are 25% too high. You should multiply
>>>>them by 80% or SPECint/fp 6MB: 1000/1720 and 3MB: 920/1600.
>>>>You should also give Opteron up to 2.6 to 2.8GHz by end of this year on PC3200.
>>>Really? Do you have a reference for this? The highest speed I've seen AMD claim
>>>for any Hammer this year is 2.6 GHz ("2.4 and 2.6 GHz in Q4", IIRC), and since that
>>>one statement I haven't seen anything beyond 2.4 GHz in Q4 (suggesting that the
>>>previous statement included 2.6 GHz as a best-case possibility which later started to look overoptimistic).
>>>Furthermore, I've seen no claim that the on-chip memory controller can handle anything faster than PC2700 memory.
>>>>Also the SPEC scores you cite are for 32 bit mode only.
>>>That does seem to be the case, at least if one believes Freb Weber's quoted 1202
>>>for 32-bit SPECint at 2 GHz. Paul has expressed skepticism that Fred's other claim
>>>(that the score will improve by 15% - 20% in 64-bit mode) will pan out, because
>>>he thinks that it will be difficult to get the 64-bit (K8-specific) compilers up
>>>to the standard set by the 32-bit Intel compiler used to obtain the 1202 score.
>>>Adding 64 bit speed up
>>>>of 10%
>>>That may either be a bit conservative (based on Fred's statement) or a bit optimistic
>>>(based on current performance differences between the Intel compiler and, e.g., gcc).
>>>and PC3200 speed up of another 10% (conservative),
>>>Or imaginary (again: reference, please?).
>>>2.0GHz Opteron gets 1440/1400,
>>>>2.4GHz gets 1650/1600, 2.6GHz gets 1775/1700 and 2.8GHz gets 1900/1800.
>>>>Given these Opteron has a good chance of beating Itanium3 in SPECfp
>>>Dream on. Opteron won't even beat McKinley when Madison releases, since Opteron
>>>will still be at 2 GHz (or at most 2.2 GHz if Madison's late and the faster Opteron
>>>is early). And unless you can substantiate your claim that Madison won't run at
>>>1.5 GHz, there's no reason to expect Opteron to be able to challenge it in SPECfp
>>>at anything less than about 3.2 - 3.4 GHz.
>>>and Itanium3
>>>>may fall behind many other 64 bit CPUs in SPECint
>>>"Many" others? Not Alpha (EV7 is a bit slower than McKinley so even EV79 in 2004
>>>likely won't quite catch Madison, and EV68 is only about 5% faster than McKinley
>>>so won't nearly match Madison). Certainly not SPARC or MIPS (they're much slower
>>>than McKinley). Not PA-RISC either (faster than SPARC and MIPS, but notably slower
>>>than McKinley). Even POWER4+ will have to bump up its clock rate significantly
>>>to match Madison (it probably can do so, but whether that will happen before Madison's release is unclear).
>>>as Opteron runs far ahead of all of them.
>>>That one I'll agree with.
>>>- bill
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
New Article AvailableDavid Kanter2003/02/02 01:44 AM
  Excellent Article, Paul (NT)Arcadian2003/02/02 03:57 PM
  Yikes! Slashdotted!Dean Kent2003/02/02 06:53 PM
    Yikes! Slashdotted!Singh, S.R.2003/02/02 11:38 PM
      Yikes! Slashdotted!Dean Kent2003/02/02 11:53 PM
        Yikes! Slashdotted!Anonymous2003/02/03 06:03 AM
          Yikes! Slashdotted!Dean Kent2003/02/03 08:13 AM
  FYI, Paul:Peter Gerassimoff2003/02/03 12:38 AM
    FYI, Paul:Bill Todd2003/02/03 02:18 AM
      FYI, Paul:Marc M.2003/02/03 09:08 AM
        Opteron SPEC PerformanceArcadian2003/02/03 11:15 AM
          Opteron SPEC PerformanceMarc M.2003/02/03 11:18 AM
      i want to see those links pls!! (NT)waitressInGaza2003/02/03 12:15 PM
        i want to see those links pls!! (NT)José Javier Zarate2003/02/05 08:23 AM
          i want to see those links pls!! (NT)waitressInGaza2003/02/05 01:50 PM
            i want to see those links pls!! (NT)tecate2003/02/05 04:09 PM
              gender should be irrelevantwaitressInGaza2003/02/05 05:36 PM
                gender should be irrelevantDean Kent2003/02/05 06:03 PM
                gender should be irrelevanttecate2003/02/05 08:27 PM
                  well it is all about your viewpointwaitressInGaza2003/02/05 11:44 PM
                    well it is all about your viewpointdoriangrey2003/02/06 11:39 PM
                Please be a girl. :pNIKOLAS2003/02/06 05:28 AM
    FYI, Paul:Paul DeMone2003/02/03 07:43 AM
  larger cache for POWER4+?Anil Maliyekkel2003/02/03 04:08 AM
    larger cache for POWER4+?Thu Nguyen2003/02/03 05:35 AM
  well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 06:41 AM
    well written indeedtecate2003/02/03 08:05 AM
      well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 08:12 AM
    well written indeedPaul DeMone2003/02/03 08:15 AM
      well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 11:04 AM
        well written indeedPaul DeMone2003/02/03 11:58 AM
          about Jim KellerMarc M.2003/02/03 12:50 PM
            about Jim KellerPaul DeMone2003/02/03 01:22 PM
              Nope but will now (NT)Marc M.2003/02/03 01:50 PM
              patent info...Marc M.2003/02/03 01:52 PM
              about the article...Dean Kent2003/02/03 03:49 PM
              Er, I just have to point something out.Anonymous2003/02/04 09:19 PM
                Next time check the date.Paul DeMone2003/02/05 12:10 AM
                  Yes, I know it was written in 2000.Anonymous2003/02/05 11:42 AM
                    Yes, I know it was written in 2000.Paul DeMone2003/02/05 12:20 PM
              about Jim KellerAlejandro G. Belluscio2003/02/09 12:09 PM
                about Jim KellerDean Kent2003/02/09 12:40 PM
                  about Jim KellerPaul DeMone2003/02/09 01:00 PM
                  about Jim KellerDavid Wang2003/02/09 01:18 PM
                    about Jim KellerPaul DeMone2003/02/09 02:47 PM
                  about Jim KellerInterested in Illinois2003/02/10 10:11 AM
                    about Jim KellerDean Kent2003/02/10 11:06 AM
                      about Jim KellerAlejandro Belluscio2003/02/11 05:53 PM
                        about Jim KellerDean Kent2003/02/11 08:52 PM
                          about Jim KellerAlejandro Belluscio2003/02/12 10:06 AM
                            about Jim KellerInterested in Illinois2003/02/13 03:19 PM
                        about Jim KellerInterested in Illinois2003/02/11 10:35 PM
                          about Jim KellerDavid Kanter2003/02/11 11:24 PM
                          Taxation systemsAlejandro Belluscio2003/02/12 09:54 AM
                            Taxation systemsInterested in Illinois2003/02/13 06:23 AM
                              Taxation systemsAlejandro Bellusco2003/02/13 09:53 AM
                                Taxation systemsInterested in Illinois2003/02/13 02:47 PM
                                  Taxation systemsAleajdnro G. Belluscio2003/02/13 04:56 PM
                                    Taxation systemsJouni Osmala2003/02/14 07:03 AM
                                      Taxation systemsAlejandro G. Belluscio2003/02/14 05:13 PM
                                  Taxation systemsDavid Kanter2003/02/14 11:18 PM
                                    Taxation systemsAlejandro Belluscio2003/02/15 07:36 AM
          well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 01:40 PM
          E8870 ChipsetJosé Javier Zarate2003/02/04 02:19 PM
            E8870 ChipsetArcadian2003/02/05 12:54 AM
              E8870 ChipsetJosé Javier Zarate2003/02/05 08:13 AM
                E8870 ChipsetArcadian2003/02/05 11:49 AM
      Minor questionJosé Javier Zarate2003/02/04 02:24 PM
    well written indeedDean Kent2003/02/03 08:18 AM
      well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 08:36 AM
        well written indeedDean Kent2003/02/03 09:33 AM
          hear hear...Marc M.2003/02/03 11:16 AM
          well written indeedhobold2003/02/03 02:02 PM
            well written indeedDean Kent2003/02/03 03:48 PM
              well written indeedhobold2003/02/04 12:56 PM
    well written indeedMarc M.2003/02/03 09:19 AM
      BTW Paul, it was VERY well written... BUT... =)Marc M.2003/02/03 09:25 AM
        Ditto (NT)William L.2003/02/10 07:28 PM
  New Article AvailableJS2003/02/05 01:09 AM
  Changes in MPU design methodologies?Richard Stacpoole2003/02/06 04:46 AM
    Changes in MPU design methodologies?Paul DeMone2003/02/06 09:47 AM
      Changes in MPU design methodologies?doriangrey2003/02/06 11:41 PM
      Changes in MPU design methodologies?William L.2003/02/10 07:34 PM
        Changes in MPU design methodologies?Singh, S.R.2003/02/10 09:34 PM
          Watch thisSingh, S.R.2003/02/10 09:42 PM
  excellent article, just a nit or twomulp2003/02/15 11:11 PM
Reply to this Topic
Body: No Text
How do you spell tangerine? 🍊