Mersenne Digest      Thursday, February 15 2001      Volume 01 : Number 817




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:44:56 -0500
From: Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Processor short family histories

At 12:54 AM 2/13/2001 -0600, Ken Kriesel wrote:

>Intel offered the 286 with 6, 8, 10, and 12.5 Mhz on one data sheet.
>AMD got to 16 on this one, but an early data sheet lists 4, 6, and 8
>(and says reprinted by permission of Intel).  FPU was separate.
>I don't recall a 286-20.

Dell had one.  At the time I got my Dell 20 MHz 386 (fall 1987) they had a 
20 MHz 286.

 > The 386 debuted at 12.5 and 16 Mhz.

I thought it debuted at 16.  I never heard of a 12.5 MHz 386.



+--------------------------------------------------------+
|                  Jud McCranie                          |
|                                                        |
| 137*2^261147+1 is prime!  (78,616 digits, 5/2/00)      |
+--------------------------------------------------------+

_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ      -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:20:43 +0100
From: Henk Stokhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Processor short family histories

Jud McCranie wrote:

>   At the time I got my Dell 20 MHz 386 (fall 1987) they had a  20 MHz 
> 286.


;-) If it is time to brag about our computers, I owned (still have it) a 
DAI homecomputer back in 1978 with a 8080A processor running at 2 MHz. 
And it was blazingly fast.

YotN,

Henk Stokhorst

_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ      -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:16:18 +-100
From: Denis Cazor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Mersenne: P4 speed and implications thereof

>John R Pierce wrote
>the P4 is likely gonna ramp up to 2GHz, 3Ghz and beyond faster and farther
>than AMD can ramp up the Tbird.

The problem with Intel, is they have difficulties to
sustain AMD performance, so they wanted to announce
higher frequencies, to be the first again.

So they doubled the number of pipeline stage from 10 to 20
and they obtained a P4 - 1.4 GHz having the same performances
a P3 - 700 MHz. The gain is only on "vectorized" data, 
when the pipe is full, as on graphics treatments.

>Jud McCranie wrote
>Yes, most Intel chips max out at about 2.5 times their initial speed, and 
>they expect the P4 clock speed to go up by at least a factor of 10.

And they claimed 1.4 GHz and perhaps 10 GHz soon,to make dreaming on P4. 
Tomorrow is another day ....

Their objectif is only publicity. G4 with small number of pipe line stage has small 
frequencies
but quite the same performances.

On the way, 64 bits machines, with Thunderbird like, micro-decoded 
and 8086-compatible, very performant and inexpensive. Intel 
product, 8086-incompatible .......

Best regards, Denis Cazor, Paris




_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ      -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:09:13 -0800 (PST)
From: John R Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: P4 speed and implications thereof

> On the way, 64 bits machines, with Thunderbird like, micro-decoded 
> and 8086-compatible, very performant and inexpensive. Intel 
> product, 8086-incompatible .......

the 86 architecture is a dinosaur, designed in 1978 to inherit features
of the 8080 which was designed in 1973, and needs to die.  IA64's VLIW
architecture is far more modern, and will carry performance to a far higher
level than 64 bit extensions of the same old EAX, [EBX*4+ESI].offset stuff.

Anyways, the IA64 has a full pentium compatibility mode, and supports mixed
mode processing where you can have 64 bit code running under an extended 32
bit OS, and visa versa, so I dunno what this 'incompatible' noise is about.

as far as G4 goes, what I've read and heard is that the performance doing
regular programming is fairly poor, its only specific "SIMD" benchmarks
that achieve the high numbers Apple likes to toss around.

Anyways, to achieve really high clock rates on a complex instruction set
you HAVE to go to a deep pipeline.  RISC processors got away with a
simpler pipeline entirely due to the simplicity of their instruction sets,
and even they have run into clock speed limitations that are not easily
overcome...  All the current high end risc engines have had to resort to
things like super-scalar architecture and incredibly complex scoreboarding
to hide the details of the pipelines from the instruction set model, once
this has been done, the risc vs cisc arguments are somewhat silly.

- -jrp

_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ      -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:00:43 -0500
From: "Brian Last-Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Processor short family histories

>The 486 was the first to offer an on-chip FPU, came out at 20 and
>25 Mhz and went to 100 Mhz (core=3x memory bus)
>in the Intel line, 133 (4x) elsewhere (AMD?).  The 486 socket's performance
>could be stretched a little further by using a Pentium Overdrive chip
>from Intel; at 83 Mhz (2.5x) giving 1.7x the performance of a 486-66
>in real world finite element analysis (ANSYS).  The 486SX was a
>no-fpu 486, with full memory bus width.
>
>The Pentium I's in various subflavors went from 60 & 66 at announcement,
>to 200 (nonMMX) and 233 in the MMX type.
>

The i486 came out in two flavors, the SX and the DX.   The 486SX ran at 25 
mhz, and had no FPU.   The DX ran at 33Mhz, and had a FPU.   The SX mobos 
had room for a math coprocessor, which was BS.   The math co was just a 
486DX chip which disabled the SX chip.   The line was continued with the 
SX50, DX2 66Mhz and later with the DX4 100Mhz part.   Buying the DX4-100 was 
pretty much a moot point because of the slow memory bus speed.   It gave me 
little or no performance gains in GIMPS competiton, and cost several hundred 
bucks.   All of this I am 100% sure of.

The Pentium chip came out at 60Mhz, and went to 75 and 90 within months of 
release.  It went up to 200Mhz.

I just looked and found a little processor history page:
http://www.ambusiness.com/NT512200.html

In my collection I have a ~700Khz TI/99/4A and a 2.6Mhz Apple IIgs.

- -Brian
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ      -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:56:18 +0000
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mersenne: PrimeStats,  Perl script for the PrimeNet Top Producers Table

Hi Primepickers

PrimeStats is a perl script that interogates the top producers table
at: http://mersenne.org/ips/topproducers.shtml, after you've saved it to 
disk, it will give you a report on participants as specified by yourself in a
seperate data file. The script will also give you a detailed report of the 
future prospects of one user ID that you supply to the script via the command 
line, this detailed report tells you how many people are in front of the user 
but going slower and how many people behind but going faster and gives you 
estimates of when the user will catch the pack in front and when the chasing 
pack will catch up etc.

The script is available here:

http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/linstuff.html

And here is a sample report that finds current details for 10 users and gives 
a detailed report for one of them (me): 

Run Date: Thu 15 Feb 2001
Participants counted: 20,018
Extra details for user ID: sjlen

 Position   User Name      CPU Years    Exponents    CPU P90
                                         Tested     Hrs Per Day

  1264   S18743               8.921         16        225.16
  3056   felipel              3.667          8         49.83
  3171   sjlen                3.512          7         66.59
  3496   mbandsmer            3.050         19         24.85
  4021   Pse                  2.488          5         45.91
  5394   Lalo1                1.549         18         12.62
  5981   S16318               1.319          3         28.17
  6773   mage21               1.010          3         17.49
  7411   S17376               0.838          2         19.11
  7434   Paradoks             0.833          7          6.84

  3171   sjlen                3.512          7         66.59

- ------------------------------------------------

  712 people are faster than you but behind you,
at an average speed of   115.27 CPU hours per day
they are approximately     1.75 years behind you.
You will be in the center of the chasing pack in
something like   312.84 days.

  825 people are slower than you but in front of you,
at an average speed of    51.04 CPU hours per day
they are approximately     1.37 years in front of you.
You should be in the middle of the pack that you are
chasing in something like   763.26 days.

Any comments or suggestetions for improvements or error
reports are welcome. 

- -- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  3:39pm  up 13 days, 17:18,  3 users,  load average: 1.22, 1.18, 1.18
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ      -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers

------------------------------

End of Mersenne Digest V1 #817
******************************

Reply via email to