Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S268969AbTBWWCO>; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:02:14 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S268965AbTBWWCO>; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:02:14 -0500
Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:46039 "EHLO
	franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S268969AbTBWWCM>; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:02:12 -0500
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:12:14 -0800
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: davidm@hpl.hp.com
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call
Message-ID: <28370000.1046038333@[10.10.2.4]>
In-Reply-To: <15961.17579.89978.78291@napali.hpl.hp.com>
References: <E18moa2-0005cP-00@w-gerrit2>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302222354310.8609-100000@dlang.diginsite.com>
 <20030223082036.GI10411@holomorphy.com><b3b6oa$bsj$1@penguin.transmeta.com>
 <15961.8482.577861.679601@napali.hpl.hp.com><9280000.1046031179@[10.10.2.4]>
 <15961.17579.89978.78291@napali.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1374
Lines: 30

>   >>  But does x86 reall work so well?  Itanium 2 on 0.13um performs a
>   >> lot better than P4 on 0.13um.  As far as I can guess, the only
>   >> reason P4 comes out on 0.13um (and 0.09um) before anything else
>   >> is due to the latter part you mention: it's where the volume is
>   >> today.
> 
>   Martin> Care to share those impressive benchmark numbers (for
>   Martin> macro-benchmarks)?  Would be interesting to see the
>   Martin> difference, and where it wins.
> 
> You can do it two ways: you can look at the numbers Intel is publicly
> projected for Madison, or you can compare McKinley with 0.18um Pentium 4.

Ummm ... I'm not exactly happy working with Intel's own projections on the
performance of their Itanium chips ... seems a little unscientific ;-)

Presumably when you said "Itanium 2 on 0.13um performs a lot better than P4
on 0.13um." you were referring to some benchmarks you have the results of? 

If you can't publish them, fair enough. But if you can, I'd love to see how
it compares ... Itanium seems to be "more interesting" nowadays, though I
can't say I'm happy about the complexity of it.

M.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/