Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote in message ...
>
>
>Fred Kleinsorge wrote:
>
>> Bill Todd wrote in message ...
>>
>>>"Rob Young" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
>>>news:lGELmlXAGUYz@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>>>
>>>>In article <[log in to unmask]>, "Bill
>>>>
>>>Todd" <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Sorry - UltraSPARC III.  You know, the processor line Rob always
>>>>>
>>>denigrates
>>>
>>>>>for being such a pig that Itanic will quickly usurp Sun's entire
>>>>>
>>>customer
>>>
>>>>>base as its start on conquering the world.  That's why it would be so
>>>>>
>>>funny
>>>
>>>>>if McKinley turned out to be slower after all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Is that an "official" prognostication, or a wish?
>>>>
>>>I made a quantitive prediction (based on publicly-available information
>>>which I described) some time ago that McKinley would weigh in at 600 -
700
>>>SPECint2K (and most likely in the middle of that range), and I stand by
it
>>>(unless it gets delayed so long that Intel can skip the first release
>>>entirely and go directly to what would have been the first major
>>>post-release process tweak - which is looking increasingly possible).
The
>>>best USIII SPECint2K currently is 610, but since such values do tend to
>>>
>> rise
>>
>>>as new configurations appear I'd say there's a distinct possibility,
though
>>>perhaps not a better-than-even chance, that if McKinley doesn't in fact
>>>
>> wait
>>
>>>for a process-tweak before releasing it will at introduction have a hard
>>>time equalling USIII's SPECint2K speed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So there you go.  Assuming your predictions are right, McKinley will beat
>> USIII (and even your outside estimate of USIII getting faster doesn't
take
>> into account the tricked up compiler that caused the temportary "upgrade"
of
>> USIII speed).
>>
>
>
>There you go again posting about something you don't understand.
>
>1. The optimisation used by Sun only effected SPECfp note that Bill
>is talking about SPECint. Even you should be aware of the differences.
>

It should beat Sparc using any measurment.  Heck, an old guy with a hand
calculator will give it a good run for the money.

>2, It wasn't a trick and if you think it was perhaps you could back up
>your claim with evidence other than suppostion on your part.
>

They tricked up the computer to beat a specific test.  It wont take long for
everyone else to bite te bullet and add the same optimization to their
compilers.

There was no leap in hardware speed, and almost no user code will be faster
because of the trick.

>
>> So IA64 systems will at minimum be performance competetive with USIII,
and
>> from what I understand will be priced much lower.
>>
>
>This would have been an interesting point had your previous ones been
>correct since they were not it isn't :):)
>

Alright, let's ignore the future, and talk about the present.  Why would
anyone run slowaris on a uniprocessor Sparc when an IA32 is faster and
cheaper?

Eventually, even Sun users will wake up and smell the coffee.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *