Re: implemented features (Re: Decision time....)

["km b" <kmb810@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 07 Jun 2007 13:04:21 GMT, Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd120@gmail.com> wrote:

> In your case, you're giving different architecture arguments (prescott
> vs nocomo) and yet claiming it's apples-to-apples.

cause, you have to give nocona , if your machine has EM64 extension or
whatever fancy name they have given - read gcc man page.

> You don't say what compilers you were using on the two platforms, or
> even whether they were the same (gcc4 can sometimes be significantly
> faster).

compiler is gcc-4.1. Did you mention anything at all about your
benchmarkings, environments etc.? You're a researcher, and you know
how to publish your results in paper. I am not here to publish a
paper.

> (As an aside, you don't know the difference between PDF and
> postscript.)

Thanks. you are intelligent.

> All that apart, you still see a 25% increase in peak mflops in the
> 64-bit graph.  I don't see why you don't consider that significant.

That's not 50 % performance increase as you've claimied. On the other
hand you also see 25 % increase in peak peformance vice-versa as well.

> Finally, you are testing on Intel and I am testing on an AMD Opteron.
> It is widely believed that opterons do much better in 64-bit mode
> (unfortunately, nearly all the published benchmarks are 32-bit and
> basically useless).  Cray, Sun and many others in high-performance
> computing have chosen opterons for that reason.

Well, publish your benchmark results then. I know nothing about how
you compare performance. However from what I can guess,

"(I said the 32-bit
binaries are 50% slower than the 64-bit binaries.  (Eg, running time
25 secs for 64-bit, 38 secs for 32-bit.)" - (is this the level of
benchmarking you do ? - i guess no).

Cheers,
kmb

--
Something is wrong up on cloud # 9!