> 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 di
>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 t
> Well - perhaps we need something to attract new users - a new search
> area which would provide short runs with rapid feedback, or some
> "useful" work which slower systems might complete before they make
> their journey to the landfill site. With respect to the message I
> forwarded earlier
At 08:31 PM 2/12/2001 -0500, Jeff Woods wrote:
>The 486 came in at, I think, 33 Mhz, and only went to the DX2, the 66 Mhz
>model.
I believe it did come out at 33, and the DX4 went to 100 MHz. The DX2 was
2x the original 33, the DX4 was 3X.
+--
> > > Pentium 60 MHz -> 200? MHz factor of 3.3
> > P55c (mmx) hit 233MHz, I believe, for almost 4X
>
> Was P55c for notebooks? the first desktop Pentiums were 60 MHz.
P5 was original the 60-66Mhz Pentium w/ a 1x bus multiplier, and 5V I/O(I
think?)
P54 was the Pentium 75-200 MHz, using a 50
> The original Pentium went to, I think, 266 Mhz.
comprehensive list at
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/processors/quickreffam.htm
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime F
At 08:15 PM 2/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
Examples (I think these numbers are about right):
>8088 4.77 MHz -> 12 or 12 MHz, factor of about 2.3
>80286 6 MHz -> 20 MHz, factor of 2.5
>80386 16 MHz -> 40 MHz, factor of 2.5
>486
The 486 came in at, I think, 33 Mhz, and only went to the DX2, the 66 Mh
At 05:58 PM 2/11/2001 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> > Pentium 60 MHz -> 200? MHz factor of 3.3
> P55c (mmx) hit 233MHz, I believe, for almost 4X
Was P55c for notebooks? the first desktop Pentiums were 60 MHz.
>P6 architecture (which includes PPro, P2 and P3),
> 166 - 1GHz+ (factor of 6
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:29:01 -0500, you wrote:
>>This frankly makes me wonder how much longer there will be a place in
>>GIMPS for slower machines. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - after
>>all, 486s and original pentiums were the workforce when GIMPS began,
>>and I wouldn't feel comfortable w
At 04:21 PM 2/11/2001 -0800, 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.
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
At 07:07 PM 2/11/2001 -0500, Nathan Russell wrote:
> My understanding is that they are designed to perform well for
>graphical tasks; in my experience, people will buy even very expensive
>computers if it improves the performance they see when doing graphical
>tasks; gaming in particular comes t
On 11 Feb 2001, at 18:17, Jeramy Ross wrote:
> Nathan Russell wrote:
> *snip*
>
> > This frankly makes me wonder how much longer there will be a place in
> > GIMPS for slower machines. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - after
> > all, 486s and original pentiums were the workforce when GIMPS be
>This frankly makes me wonder how much longer there will be a place in
>GIMPS for slower machines. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - after
>all, 486s and original pentiums were the workforce when GIMPS began,
>and I wouldn't feel comfortable with the amount of opportunity for
>error involved in
>De : "Jud McCranie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>À : "Nathan Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | Think recursively( Think recursively( Think recursively)) |
> ...(stripped)...
No offence meant, but this hurts my feeling of recursivity... maybe
something like :
Think_recursively(){if (!enough_thinking_do
> 486 ??
25->100MHz, factor of 4
> Pentium 60 MHz -> 200? MHz factor of 3.3
P55c (mmx) hit 233MHz, I believe, for almost 4X
> other pentiums ??
P6 architecture (which includes PPro, P2 and P3),
166 - 1GHz+ (factor of 6+)
__
> I wonder how many people are going to have P4s. Presently, the Athlon is
> faster for most things, and cheaper. I don't know if the P4 will pull
> ahead of AMD chips for most things, so will people buy them?
the P4 is likely gonna ramp up to 2GHz, 3Ghz and beyond faster and farther
than AMD c
Nathan Russell wrote:
*snip*
> This frankly makes me wonder how much longer there will be a place in
> GIMPS for slower machines. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - after
> all, 486s and original pentiums were the workforce when GIMPS began,
> and I wouldn't feel comfortable with the amount of
Jud, you wrote:
>I wonder how many people are going to have P4s. Presently, the Athlon is
>faster for most things, and cheaper. I don't know if the P4 will pull
>ahead of AMD chips for most things, so will people buy them?
My understanding is that they are designed to perform well for
graphi
At 06:12 PM 2/11/2001 -0500, Nathan Russell wrote:
>Additionally, the P4 is only going to get faster in the next year or
>two.
>
>This frankly makes me wonder how much longer there will be a place in
>GIMPS for slower machines.
I wonder how many people are going to have P4s. Presently, the Athl
Let's assume that the P4 is, as George estimates, capable of doing the
512K FFT at 0.04 iterations per second.
In this case, with some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I estimate
that a thousand P4s (which might well be on PrimeNet in a year, or a
little more - the P4 is approaching the statu
20 matches
Mail list logo
