Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 22:06:24 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 00:52:09, enrico carrisco wrote: >On February 19, 2003 at 00:19:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 19, 2003 at 00:11:08, Aaron Gordon wrote: >> >>>I just downloaded Crafty 16.19 and ran a bench for you guys. No single cpu Intel >>>box could ever touch this without sub-zero cooling. Just plain not going to >>>happen. >>> >>>Crafty v16.19 >>> >>>White(1): bench >>>Running benchmark. . . >>>...... >>>Total nodes: 67136136 >>>Raw nodes per second: 1766740 >>>Total elapsed time: 38 >>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 16.842105 >> >> >>This is not a great test since that is a very old version. I'm not sure how >>1.7M compares to version 19.3 in nps... >> >>However, while on the question, what is an XP 2.44ghz machine, since I am not >>an AMD expert. Overclocked? If so, I consider that a worthless number, because >>of obvious reasons... > > >If done properly and tested for reliability -- what reasons do you speak of? >Most CPUs are purposely locked from higher than marked performance from the >manufacturer for marketing and other reasons -- both Intel and AMD. This, in no >way, means the CPU is incapable of such performance. Propigation delays do. Intel and AMD release chips at a given speed for a reason. Yes, much of it is about money. It is very profittable to allow consumers to upgrade through every iteration of a chip. Not always. Intel delayed the 1.13 GHz Pentium 3 for a while. I've heard that they could not mass produce them reliably at the time. >In the case of AMD, chips with the same stepping are identical no matter what >they're marked. So if a 1500+ AthlonXP has an AIUHB 0301 core and an AthlonXP >2800+ has an AIUHB 0301 then they'll be able to run identical speeds. >(Obviously there are slight variations in peak performance, if you're going for >higher than XP3000+ level.) > >Are you suggesting that "unlocking" performance that is already included in the >core simply because the marking on the top of the cpu says otherwise makes such >results worthless? No, he is suggesting that comparing unguaranteed performance is worthless and silly. You might stick a peltier on your chip, tweak the voltage, and manage to run 2.8 GHz or something similarly fast. That doesn't mean I can. That doesn't mean anyone else can. >Wouldn't that be the same as saying stronger results I may find with Crafty if I >modified the settings are completely worthless if you did not include the >settings in your official release? Modifying Crafty compile settings doesn't cause it to crash all of a sudden. Furthermore, anyone can apply those same settings and get the same results. -Matt
This page took 0.01 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.