Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:51:29 12/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2002 at 11:33:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 17, 2002 at 11:25:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On December 17, 2002 at 10:58:51, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >> >>Indeed you are correctly seeing that DIEP, which runs well on >>cc-NUMA machines as well, is a very good program from intels >>perspective, because even a 'second' processor on each physical >>processor which runs slower will still give it a speedboost, >>where others simply slow down a lot when you do such toying. >> >>So where many programs which will be way slower when running at >>4 processes/threads at a 2 processor Xeon, the software is the >>weak chain. > >What program fits this description? Not mine... *many* programs Bob. Crafty and DIEP aren't the only thing on the planet which gets used by most people who need a dual to perform multithreading for them. And majority of them uses NT4 server, 2000 server or XP pro/server. For sure not some non existing OS that is seeing the clear difference between physical and split processors! > >> >>In case of DIEP the bottleneck is the hardware clearly. Even >>something working great on cc-NUMA doesn't profit too much from >>the SMT/HT junk from intel. >> >>Though it is a great sales argument, the hard facts (11.4% >>speedboost) are not lying. >> >>So they need to press 2 cpu's which results in a cpu price >>2 times higher *at least* than an AMD cpu, the result >>is that you win 11.4% in speed. > >What are you talking about? SMT doesn't "press 2 cpus". the size of a P4 processor is a lot bigger than the AMD core, that's explaining for a big part why P4 is so much more expensive than a K7. >> >>Though i am not a hardware engineer, i can imagine the problems >>they had getting this to work. >> >>Instead of a P4-Xeon cpu clocked at 2.8Ghz which can split itself >>into 2 physical processors, i would have preferred a P3-Xeon cpu >>which splitted itself into 2 real processors (so each having its >>own L1 and L2 caches) clocked at 2.0Ghz. >> >>That would have kicked anything of course from speed viewpoint as >>it scales 1 : 1.2 to a K7 (k7 20% faster for each Ghz than the P3). >> >>Now we end up with a very expensive cpu which is 1 : 1.4 and a bad >>working form of HT/SMT. >> >>So it's not DIEP having a problem here. But the hardware very clearly. >>Intel optimistically claims 20% speed boost here and there. Others >>claim 11% for database applications. >> >>I see 11.4% for DIEP. So that's a market conform viewpoint. >> >>The not so amazing thing of this all is that a 2.8Ghz Xeon being not >>deliverable yet here is very expensive (even a 3.06Ghz P4 is already 885 >>euro in the shops here also not yet deliverable) and the MP2200 which >>DOES get offered for sales here is 290 euro. the fastest Xeon i see >>getting offered socket 603 is a 2.0Ghz Xeon for 829 euro at alternate.nl >> >>a dual motherboard for the P4 i see here is several: >> 789 euro for a dual xeon motherboard called: 860d pro (msi) >> 549 euro for a tyan S2720GN is by far the cheapest i see >> >>then you gotta buy ecc registered DDR ram for it. >> >>a dual motherboard for K7 i see at the same alternate.nl is: >> 259 euro for A7M266-D/U >> 299 euro chaintech 7KDD (dual; U-DMA/133 RAID en sound) AMD-762MPX >> 289 euro tiger MPX S2466N-4M >> >>The last mainboard (tiger) for sure needs registered DDR ram. but lucky >>not ECC ram. >> >>the P4 dual motherboards need for sure ecc registered stuff. >> >>The only good news is that ddr ram ecc registered is a lightyear cheaper >>than ecc registered RDRAM. >> >>RDRAM RIMM 256 MB (ValueRAM, ECC) voor PC PC1066 EUR 239,00 >>now you can't need 256MB at all. You need more RAM than that. which is >>exponential more expensive i fear. >> >>You get better served with DDR ram though: >> kingston 1GB DIMM 1 GB (Registered) for PC PC266 EUR 599,00 >> >>It is amazing how many professors and others still throw away money >>to get that dual 2.8Ghz P4 which is over 2 times more expensive than >>AMD dual at the moment is. >> >> >> >> >>>On December 17, 2002 at 10:10:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>Hello, >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>> >>>>Best regards, >>>>Vincent >>> >>>Vincent: >>> >>>Please help me to understand this. I had the impression that a software >>>package's design makes a huge difference in how well that software will utilize >>>a given hardware package. In the past, you talked about the advantage of >>>portability. The "ideal" chess engine would run optimally on "anything." >>> >>>It seems to me that evaluation of the suitability, of a particular hardware >>>configuration, for chess purposes must be measured using several or many >>>different chess software packages. >>> >>>How do you know, for sure, that your program will run properly on the hardware >>>you're discussing? How do you separate out the evaluation of the hardware from >>>the software? Doesn't performance depend on both? If you get poor performance, >>>how do you isolate the problem to the hardware? >>> >>>Bob D.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.