[suncommunity] Re: Where are the Blade 1500's?
- From: Adrien Farkas <freddy@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: suncommunity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 12:42:42 +0200
rpasken@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (rpasken@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote :
> How are Intel processors out performing Sparcs?? I cannot run any of my
> software
> on anything less that a 3.2Ghz P4 and expect anything in less than days. Yet a
> lowly Blade 150 gives shorter runtimes. Granted 6 days versus 5.5 days is not
> a big difference in runtimes, but I should expect a factor 3 reduction in
> times
> based on clock speed, yet is slower. I bought 1.8GHZ Athlon's for a BEOWULF
> cluster, yet the cluster made out of 400 Ultra-5's give shorter runtimes than
> the Athlon's Friends don't let Friends do Intel!!
This is a common flame-war topic, RISC vs CISC. Clock speed is far from
being a good compare attribute. Without going deep into technical
details, this cannot be explained to your satisfaction, however :-(
Nowadays, perhaps, the differences between Intel and Sparc (or other
RISCs) are closer than before, because of several RISC attributes that
is built into CISC CPUs, but RISCs are even a bit further regarding
technical advantage.
Again, clock speed isn't all. I suggest some technical reading about
this topic.
cheers,
--
freddy
...for more info 'finger freddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Other related posts:
