FYI: Current SPECfp landscape...
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Greg Lindahl lindahl at conservativecomputer.comFri May 11 10:45:13 PDT 2001
- Previous message: FYI: Current SPECfp landscape...
- Next message: FYI: Current SPECfp landscape...
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 05:41:30PM -0400, Josip Loncaric wrote: > Sure. But clearly we are talking about the *current* generation of high > performance memory systems. There was no implication that this could be > extended to future technologies. You are reading way more into this > than was actually said or implied. Ah. Well, I did read that you compared the performance/Ghz of AMD to Intel, and that is clearly a bad idea. > Your point about ignoring memory bandwidth is puzzling. Memory > bandwidth is very important to us, I am absolutely not ignoring it, When you were looking for the 4:3 ratio of FPU performance, you neglected the memory bandwidth. Since the memory bandwidth of the things you were comparing were vastly different (3:1), and you know that SPEC2000fp has an important memory bandwidth component, you wouldn't expect the 4:3 ratio of FPU speeds to be present as exactly 4:3. Or anything close to 4:3. So, again, the minute you crossed the line of comparing within a single chip line to comparing two different chip lines, you methodology became bad. That's my objection. -- greg
- Previous message: FYI: Current SPECfp landscape...
- Next message: FYI: Current SPECfp landscape...
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
