Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:22:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:22:43 -0500 Received: from palrel12.hp.com ([156.153.255.237]:12268 "EHLO palrel12.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:22:41 -0500 From: David Mosberger MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15961.33856.876529.568807@napali.hpl.hp.com> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:32:32 -0800 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, David Lang , Subject: Re: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call In-Reply-To: References: <15961.20756.474745.44896@napali.hpl.hp.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.1 Reply-To: davidm@hpl.hp.com X-URL: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/David_Mosberger/ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1988 Lines: 49 >>>>> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:40:40 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds said: Linus> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, David Mosberger wrote: >> 2 GHz Xeon: 701 SPECint >> 1 GHz Itanium 2: 810 SPECint >> That is, Itanium 2 is 15% faster. Linus> Ehh, and this is with how much cache? Linus> Last I saw, the Itanium 2 machines came with 3MB of Linus> integrated L3 caches, and I suspect that whatever 0.13 Linus> Itanium numbers you're looking at are with the new 6MB Linus> caches. Unfortunately, HP doesn't sell 1.5MB/1GHz Itanium 2 workstations, but we can do some educated guessing: 1GHz Itanium 2, 3MB cache: 810 SPECint 900MHz Itanium 2, 1.5MB cache: 674 SPECint Assuming pure frequency scaling, a 1GHz/1.5MB Itanium 2 would get around 750 SPECint. In reality, it would get slightly less, but most likely substantially more than 701. Linus> So your "apples to apples" comparison isn't exactly that. I never claimed it's an apples to apples comparison. But comparing same-process chips from the same manufacturer does make for a fairer "architectural" comparison because it factors out at least some of the effects caused by volume (there is no reason other than (a) volume and (b) being designed as a server chip for Itanium chips to come out on the same process later than the corresponding x86 chips). Linus> The only thing that is meaningful is "performace at the same Linus> time of general availability". You claimed that x86 is inherently superior. I provided data that shows that much of this apparent superiority is simply an effect of the larger volume that x86 achieves today. Please don't claim that x86 wins on technical grounds when it really wins on economic grounds. --david - 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/