> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 4 11:43:10 2000
>
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> > What do you think will be better (computing) PIII Xeon 550MHz or 733
> > (800?) PIII?
>
> For my specific application, problem size is huge (few hundred Mb to few Gb,
> which must be stored entirely in ram) and runtimes are very long (days to weeks)
> so cache size is relatively insignificant compared to plain old speed. Your
> application may be different, and if it involves a lot of small (<500 Kb)
> pieces the Xeon may be more attractive. For what I'm doing the PIII vs. Xeon
> argument doesn't hold up well because if one was going to spend as much per
> processor as Xeons costs it'd be much better to start a rack of new Alphas; see
> http://www.digital.com/alphaserver/sc/index.html
> There's a couple of pretty big Alpha clusters running Linux here; the Avalon's
> got the most press.
> http://cnls-www.lanl.gov:80/Internal/Computing/Avalon/news.html
>
> >
> > Does Linux make any additional use of PIII Xeon (specific instructions)?
>
> I can't provide an informed response to this question; someone else probably
> can?
If anyone has insight into this, I'd really appreciate it. The new coppermine
Xeons are substantially cheaper than the old PIII and PII versions. If you
don't take too much of a hit because of the smaller (256k) cache, is there any
benefit to paying the premium for a Xeon-coppermine over a PIII-Xeon or
PIII-coppermine?
C
--
Christopher Mauritz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/dmentre/smp-howto/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
