Hi,
At 04:30 PM 2/11/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>One of the drawbacks of doing it
>by hand in assembler...too bad high-quality HLL compilers (i.e. ones
>capable of giving 80-90% of the performance of laboriously coded and
>hand-tuned ASM, for complex, data-nonlocal algorithms requiring
> 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+)
__
>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
>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
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
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:09:51 -0500, George wrote:
> George is working on it, but is a long way from completion. Progress is
> slow, primarily due to my own laziness.
George might be overclocked -- he is referring to himself in the 3rd person
(indirect register mode?).
-Shaun
__
A very minor suggestion:
Why not have the next version of Prime95 have an option for disk writes
to occur based on the number of iterations, rather than the time passed? If
someone's playing a game or running other heavy CPU using programs for some
time, then they may end up backing up ver
With respect to the screensaver idea,
The difficult thing about visualizing the Lucas-Lehmer compuation is that
it's so... abstract. There isn't any immediately obvious way to see its
progress other than what's currently done: a readout of the iteration number
and clock cycle. However, another i
Anyone who isn't on the NMBRTHRY list will have missed the following
interesting & relevant message:
--- Forwarded message follows ---
Hi all,
We have published a new article : "An efficient probable prime test for
numbers of the form (2^p+1)/3"
Abstract :
The developpement of a new pr
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
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
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 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
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
> 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
> > > 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
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.
+--
Clever and I like it. I will use it when it is delivered.
At 05:40 PM 2/11/01 -0800, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:
>With respect to the screensaver idea,
>The difficult thing about visualizing the Lucas-Lehmer compuation is that
>it's so... abstract. There isn't any immediately obvious way to see i
> Today's mystery: I've found a case where adding a NOP instruction
> speeds up the code by 9%. Not just a small loop, the 9% speedup
> affects the entire 2nd pass of the FFT! As of now I have no theories
> or explanations. Time to write some more code fragments to figure
> it out.
I wond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One of the drawbacks of doing it
> by hand in assembler...too bad high-quality HLL compilers (i.e. ones
> capable of giving 80-90% of the performance of laboriously coded and
> hand-tuned ASM, for complex, data-nonlocal algorithms requiring lots
> of data prefetch) appe
The 8088 debuted at 5 (& 8) Mhz; IBM derated it a bit for the PC because
4.77Mhz*3 = 14.318 = 4 * 3.57Mhz (TV color burst frequency).
An IBM (pre-XT) motherboard could be pushed to about 7.5 Mhz by splitting
the clock signal paths. FPU was separate. Ten Mhz chips were offered.
This chip had comp
21 matches
Mail list logo
