[RC5] Performance on P-IV

Rolf Stals r.stals at oke.nl
Fri May 11 17:56:04 EDT 2001


The Itanium is indeed the very first 64AI processor to be released from
Intel. The P-IV is still a 32IA processor. Tweakers.net has a review posted
of both (or at least the Itanium) at it's website, www.tweakers.net, seek
and you will find.

Rolf





At 10:18 11-5-01 +0200, you wrote:
>   Now I'm confused... one says P-IV is 32IA other  says it's 64IA I myself
>believe the Itanic (slang for Itanium) was to be the  first 64IA. I'm gonna
>figure it out now and straighten everybody out  :-)   Let ya all know in 30
>mins or so    ----- Original Message -----    From:    Dennis Lubert      
>To: rc5 at lists.distributed.net    Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:14  PM  
>Subject: Re: [RC5] Performance on    P-IV   
>yeah the performance is really bad on PIV for *every* program    running in
>IA32 mode. PIV native mode is IA64, nad since it is completely    different
>from IA32 it emulates this via some integrated microcode. If u read   
>benchmarks in some magazines like them from zd.net u will find that a PIV
>with    same clock is significantly slower than a PIII. But if *one day*
>the IA64 core    is supported it should run faster... should...
>
>At 11:31 10.05.01 +0200,    you wrote:
>   Hey I've got      some sad sad sad statistics. I hope there is an
>explanation for this because      else I have to advise everybody NOT to
>buy Pentium-IV's because this is      sad.....
> 
>Ok.. the distributed      net does NOT recognize P-IV's yet so it does a
>micro bench and selects Core      #2 RG Class 6 which is the same core
>running on P-II's. Knowing this you      would suspect a performance
>increase on a P-IV 1400 compared to P-II 400 of      1400/400 = 3.5 which
>would mean 350% performance increase in MHz so the pure      calculative
>power should increase 350% also... Ding      WRONG.
> 
>My P-II 400 on Core #2 RG      Class 6 Win2K with some services runs
>1,128,585,13 according to dnetc      -benchmark rc5
>  Class 6 only makes a LOUSY      1,824,190,86 on a freshly installed WinME
>without any      services.
> 
>This is only a lousy      161.64% (182419086/112858513*100) increase over a
>350% increase of      MHz's
> 
>To give another      example
>(This runs on linux btw, and the      tests I've done the rc5 clients run
>faster on linux in any case (using the      exact same hardware RC5 goes
>faster under linux than under      win)
>My AMD Athlon 1000 (1 GHz) scores a      friggin' absolutely awesome
>3,538,971.00 Hahaha a 1GHz Athlon is almost      TWICE as fast as a
>stinking P-IV 1400 which has 400MHz more under ít's belt.      This is
>scary shit... Hehe Guess I shouldn't buy intel... Atleast not until     
>everything is optimized because this is really      sad.
> 
>Hope somebody can explain      this....
> 
>-- To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe    rc5' to
>majordomo at lists.distributed.net rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5    with
>rc5-digest 
> 
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list