[RC5] Performance on P-IV

Ferry van Steen td at salesint.com
Mon May 14 11:18:52 EDT 2001

Well that's a nice link Rolf, but aren't ya forgetting that that's a DUTCH

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rolf Stals" <r.stals at oke.nl>
To: <rc5 at lists.distributed.net>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [RC5] Performance on P-IV

> 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
> 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
> >believe the Itanic (slang for Itanium) was to be the  first 64IA. I'm
> >figure it out now and straighten everybody out  :-)   Let ya all know in
> >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
> >IA32 mode. PIV native mode is IA64, nad since it is completely
> >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
> >without any      services.
> >
> >This is only a lousy      161.64% (182419086/112858513*100) increase over
> >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
> >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