> >will require scads of floating point
> Rule of thumb need floating point use intel... BUT if you have money enough (and
> if you are considering dual Xeon 2MB you have) take a look at alpha the new
> processor 21264 is really the best money can buy... And if you run linux you can
> save a bunvle in software...
"Rule of thumb need floating point use Intel" ???? I've always heard
just the opposite...need floating point, DON'T use Intel...
Anyone have any Benchmarks on the 21264 ? Price / Mflop ?
> Anyway if you need lots of IO get a SCSI subsystem maybe RAID level zero for
> even faster performance (see DPT they have very nice caching controlers)
Aggree with the SCSI, Have had trouble with DPT 2044UW controller &
Linux... Seems at maximum transfer rate (20Mhz) I get rnadom SCSI Bus
errors and occasional lock ups...the two drivers (EATA & EATA-DMA) under
kernel 2.0.36 have *different* errors, but *neither* work without errors
at full transfer rates...and yes, I have checked cables, devices,
terminations, etc. I've swapped the card with an Adaptec 2940UW and
didn't have any problems. I swapped the individual drives with new
drives, and got the errors on the new drives. I've tried several cables,
including those sold by Adaptec that were designed to work for maximum
transfer rates on an UW bus...only consitent thing was DPT controller +
20Mhz SCSI Xfer rate = SCSI Bus errors (timeouts, device busy, etc...)
> >So I'm looking at the new high end processors..PII/PIII and discover
> >this PII Xeon chip.
> PIII does not pay... Yet maybe with the new chipsets at 133Mhz FSB and faster
> clock speeds... The new intructions will take _too_ long to be implemented by
> compiler makers...
True, the P-III does not have any new features that will cause any
preformance increase, but the manufacturers I looked at are selling
systems with them that are pricewise the same as a PII at the same
speed... (i.e. a P-II 400 system is about $300 more than a P-II 350, and
a P-III 450 is $300 more than a P-II 400, and a P-III 500 is $300 more
than a P-III 450...) so it seems they are being priced as high speed
> >As far as I can see.. the main difference is the L2 cache speed. Has
> >anybody seen any benchmarks
> And floating point, wich is very important to you...
Ummm...where did you get your info? I haven't been able to find *any*
benchmarks that say a 400 Mhz Xeon is any better at Floating point
operations than a 400Mhz P-II... In fact they have the *same* core (FPU
included) and the primary difference between the Xeon and the P-II (and
P-III) is that the L2 cache on the Xeon runs at *cpu* speed, where the
L2 cace on the other run at 1/2 cpu speed... so, data access is somewhat
faster, but the floating point operations is not significantly
> See http://www.tomshardware.com/ they have a lot of benchmarks there...
Also take a look at the Spec homepage (http://www.spec.org) for
comparisons with *lots* of systems...
John Burton, Ph.D.
Senior Associate GATS, Inc.
(757) 873-5920 (voice) (757) 873-5920 (fax)