Some early benchmarks for P4EE

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:35:46 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
wrote:
"Tony Hill" wrote in message
t.com...
To make use of wider bits, you need to actually be using the values.
You can't pack two 32-bit values in a 64-bit register and be done with
it, it just doesn't work like that.

You've forgotten about the SIMD instructions, i.e. MMX all of the way upto
SSE2.

True, but that's a whole other can of worms right there, and has no
real bearing on the subject of the performance of the Athlon64 in
32-bit mode vs. 64-bit mode.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

even though the Pentium 4 has virtually nothing in common with the
original Pentium.

ROFL....only that x86 stuff.....hehe

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:43:32 GMT, "ZOD" wrote:
even though the Pentium 4 has virtually nothing in common with the
original Pentium.

ROFL....only that x86 stuff.....hehe

Yup, that same x86 stuff that the 386 had. Does that mean that the
386 and the Pentium 4 are in any way similar chips?

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

You either don't have a clue about Dr. Tom, or your haven't been
paying attention. Likely both!

Why *anyone* would listen to what he (or anyone writing for his
site) has to say is beyond me! He's for sale to the lowest bidder
(damn, even a first-class ticket and a dinner rubbing elbows has
impressed the nitwit).


Yes, it's all a conspiracy Keith.

Judd

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:12:02 GMT, Tony Hill
wrote:

On 27 Sep 2003 03:10:01 GMT, (root) wrote:
Tony Hill wrote:
It seems to me that the Athlon64 3200+ and the P4 3.2C are well
matched at this time, while the Athlon64 FX 51 and the P4 EE 3.2GHz
are also about even. ...

Indeed.

Then it just comes down to other features. I really like Intel's
Hyperthreading feature, ... AMD's 64-bit capabilities are nice and are
currently mostly unused. I've been surprised to see a number of
applications showing a good performance boost when going to 64-bits
which I had not expected. MP3 encoding, Div-X encoding

Why not? bit operations and multiplications are always the wider the
better if you can do them in equal time -- you have fewer to do now.

To make use of wider bits, you need to actually be using the values.

I think he means bit operations: boolean, shifting etc. If you have huge
arrays of bits which need such operations, 64-bit is a huge benefit.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:41:36 GMT,
(George Macdonald) wrote:
To make use of wider bits, you need to actually be using the values.

I think he means bit operations: boolean, shifting etc. If you have huge
arrays of bits which need such operations, 64-bit is a huge benefit.

Bit operations are generally VERY rare breeds in this day and age,
mainly because they don't really offer you anything over integer
operations. The chance of having more than 32 boolean variables in a
single application and being used in a relatively short period of time
(such that they aren't been pushed out of renamed registers or at the
very least the L1 cache) is pretty darn slim if you ask me.

The only case where I've seen use of a lots of boolean stuff and
shifting is in cryptography, and that's an area that has already been
discussed as benefiting strongly from 64-bit processing.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

In article ,
says...
You either don't have a clue about Dr. Tom, or your haven't been
paying attention. Likely both!

Why *anyone* would listen to what he (or anyone writing for his
site) has to say is beyond me! He's for sale to the lowest bidder
(damn, even a first-class ticket and a dinner rubbing elbows has
impressed the nitwit).


Yes, it's all a conspiracy Keith.

You haven't a clue, eh kid? DeanK has documented some of his
inanities. You might wish to search the archives of this group
before showing your green side.

--
Keith

"Keith R. Williams" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
You haven't a clue, eh kid? DeanK has documented some of his
inanities. You might wish to search the archives of this group
before showing your green side.

--
Keith

Yeah... Unfortunetly I don't have links... But I've seen him declare a
product a winnner (even AMD's) in a particular benchmark when at least
according to the diagram posted to the web site, it clearly was not.... Dr.
Tom is insane...

Carlo

You haven't a clue, eh kid? DeanK has documented some of his
inanities. You might wish to search the archives of this group
before showing your green side.


Are you Mulder or Scully? I've seen him give some interesting conclusions
on his benchmarks that I would not have come to based on the figures, but
that's about it. Of course, I'm clueless and green. LMAO! Some of you
guys are crackups.

Judd

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:07:35 GMT, Tony Hill
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:41:36 GMT,
(George Macdonald) wrote:
To make use of wider bits, you need to actually be using the values.

I think he means bit operations: boolean, shifting etc. If you have huge
arrays of bits which need such operations, 64-bit is a huge benefit.

Bit operations are generally VERY rare breeds in this day and age,
mainly because they don't really offer you anything over integer
operations. The chance of having more than 32 boolean variables in a
single application and being used in a relatively short period of time
(such that they aren't been pushed out of renamed registers or at the
very least the L1 cache) is pretty darn slim if you ask me.

Tha's a kinda sweeping statement to me - IME bit maps have come in handy
from time to time. Not sure what the 32 variables has to do with it.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??