interesting Athlon/P4 discussion from FreeBSD-Q-l
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.comWed Apr 18 19:49:34 PDT 2001
- Previous message: interesting Athlon/P4 discussion from FreeBSD-Q-l
- Next message: interesting Athlon/P4 discussion from FreeBSD-Q-l
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 08:11:58PM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote: > the P4 is not exceptional > when running real code in-cache; this is why on most benchmarks > other than Stream, recent Athlons beat P4's quite handily. Like SPEC2000fp, for example? Advanced Micro Devic Gigabyte GA-7DX Motherboard, 1.33GHz 445 Intel Corporation Intel D850GB motherboard(1.5 GHz, Pe 558 If you compile your own codes, and you can get the Intel compiler, than SPEC2000fp is probably a lot more relevant than the numerous benchmarks where old compilers were used. This is similar to the situation with the Pentium Pro, which was terrible on 16-bit windows code, but great on 32-bit Linux code. The press said bad things, but Linux users were happy. > and that's why AMD is having such an awsome time in the market now, > and why Intel is cutting prices so dramatically on the P4. That's true in the overall market. I thought this was the Beowulf mailing list? Do you think that a majority of beowulf users can re-compile their own codes, or do they use shrink-wrapped binaries from vendors who are unwilling to re-compile for the P4? -- g
- Previous message: interesting Athlon/P4 discussion from FreeBSD-Q-l
- Next message: interesting Athlon/P4 discussion from FreeBSD-Q-l
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
