Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 13:43:58 02/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2003 at 11:31:52, Charles Worthington wrote: >On February 22, 2003 at 03:32:59, Matt Taylor wrote: > >>On February 22, 2003 at 01:13:00, Charles Worthington wrote: >> >>>On February 22, 2003 at 01:05:46, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>> >>>>On February 22, 2003 at 00:31:38, Charles Worthington wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 23:52:51, Charles Worthington wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Febronuary 21, 2003 at 23:48:41, Charles Worthington wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 19:57:10, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 18:02:39, Charles Worthington wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 17:37:35, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 08:04:18, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 08:02:34, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 07:14:47, Charles Worthington wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 07:05:22, Charles Worthington wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 06:47:11, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On February 21, 2003 at 04:46:53, Charles Worthington wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bob what program is required for me to conduct benchmark tests with Crafty? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Could you please e-mail it or post a link here to it? Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Charles, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have it, the "crafty" program has a built in benchmark ....start crafty in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>dos mode (console) with no crafty.rc file ( a plain taxt file you create with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>engine parameters - but in this case - do not have a crafty.rc file in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>directory as crafty). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Type word "bench" at the command prompt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks Mike. I haven't set the Crafty you sent me up yet so I didn't know. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>all honesty I have no Idea how to set it up to run on the Chessbase server. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Crafty that comes with fritz is already set up so I have never had to set one up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>yet. The other foreign progs are easy just drop in the eng and dll and you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>done. This does not look so easy. :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>640 kNs.....Not good :-) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>on your new machine?? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>ok I see it in your title ...that is respectable for 1.2Ghz Celeron -- it's in >>>>>>>>>>>the ballpark -- I think a dual 3 Ghz will get 3M nps.... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Hyatts Dual xeon 2.8GHz only gets 2.1 million in the benchmark.. >>>>>>>>>>If you scale it up to 3.06x2 + HT you'll only see about 2.3 million. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Crafty v19.4 (1 cpus) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>White(1): mt=4 >>>>>>>>>>max threads set to 4 >>>>>>>>>>White(1): bench >>>>>>>>>>Running benchmark. . . >>>>>>>>>>...... >>>>>>>>>>Total nodes: 104415743 >>>>>>>>>>Raw nodes per second: 2130933 >>>>>>>>>>Total elapsed time: 49 >>>>>>>>>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 13.061224 >>>>>>>>>>White(1): end >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Thats good to know aaron but i never said i would pull 3 million with crafty. I >>>>>>>>>run fritz primarily. I may experiment some with crafty though. where are u >>>>>>>>>getting a 3000kNs figure? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Mike mentioned 3000kN/s. By the way, from what I've seen Crafty will get more >>>>>>>>kN/s than Fritz will. Crafty has better support for HT, too. The only way you >>>>>>>>will come close to 3 million is by using an AMD system. Those don't need HT and >>>>>>>>are fast already. Crafty gets 1.3 million nodes/sec on a P4-3.06GHz with HT, >>>>>>>>1.8x speedup and you've got just over 2.3 million nodes/sec, just as Hyatt has >>>>>>>>shown us here with his 2.8's. Now, you don't get to use HT (well, it's not >>>>>>>>useful yet) in Deep Fritz. Take my CPU for example. I get about 1.6 million >>>>>>>>nodes/sec in crafty's benchmark. 1.6 million * 1.7 speedup = 2.72 million >>>>>>>>nodes/sec. This will also be quick for Deep Fritz, too. If you want speed and >>>>>>>>don't mind pushing your chips a little (only 10% overlock, not much at all) >>>>>>>>you'll have the fastest box. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Considering the motherboard will be $150 and each chip is less than $100 thats a >>>>>>>>pretty good deal. ~$1000 for a system that gets 2.72 million nodes/sec without >>>>>>>>any HT help OR $4000-5000 for a system that gets 2.31 million and has to support >>>>>>>>HT. I don't know about you but the decision is pretty clear to me.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>well actually aaron i just watched one of the guys from ccc here in playchess >>>>>>>with a dual 2600mp and he was pulling 1995 kNs with deep fritz 7 and was >>>>>>>overclocked to over 2800...I saved the game and the kNs posted by the >>>>>>>server...and it was more than one game as he was getting demolished by a 2.2 ghz >>>>>>>p4 single. Oh and BTW i dont need 3.06 to beat that...Bob's 2.8's will pull 2250 >>>>>>>themselves. You guys can make all the wild claims here you like but the fritz >>>>>>>server tells on you every time. The 3.06 dual will be here next week so If an >>>>>>>amd system here can get a higher kNs i want to see it on the server where it >>>>>>>counts but u had better do a whole bunch of overclocking and get those cpu's >>>>>>>steaming. You would have to be dilusional to believe that AMD 2600MP is superior >>>>>>>to a high end Intel Workstation. And I don't need a Degree in computer science >>>>>>>to figure that one out. Just a little observation on the server will do. So if >>>>>>>you can outpost the xeons dont tell me...come show me..then i will be the first >>>>>>>to come back here and congratulate you... :-) Of course it wont happen so... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Oh and also i almost forgot There were others from here that witnessed it too >>>>>>along with the speed he claimed to get here...the two wern't even close. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Oh and i also believe that if AMD had the technology or the research funds to >>>>>have invented hyperthreading technology...they would have. it doesnt take a >>>>>rocket scientist to see that two threads are better than one for multiple >>>>>applications. So i will keep the 2600 dollar pair of xeons if you don't mind. >>>>>Besides i wasnt looking to save money i was looking for a good machine that >>>>>didn't_have_to be overclocked to get 2500 kNs. Had I been searching for an >>>>>economical system i would have chosen the AMD. But I would have lived with what >>>>>I had and not tried to fry eggs on it. :-)) Not everyone here wants 100.00 >>>>>cpu's. Thats why there are two markets... >>>> >>>>As koibito pointed out two XP's in SMP configuration are slower than two MP's. >>>>Also I've already done the comparison. Koibito (dual athlons @ 2.31) gets more >>>>nodes/second than hyatts box. Also, my old AthlonXP 1.6 @ 1.86GHz beat Hyatts >>>>dual Xeon running Crafty? Does that make my machine better than his? Sure >>>>doesn't. Programs, books, hash sizes, etc were all different. If you take the >>>>exact same program with the same settings faster will better. There's no way >>>>that single P4 is faster than his dual and that single P4 gets barely half of >>>>what my cpu gets in chess stuff. >>>> >>>>Also, did koibito play a few hundred games against that P4? Did they use the >>>>exact same program and settings? You can't make ANY conclusions about speed >>>>based off what you've seen in those 1-2 games you saw. If you do then go ahead >>>>and assume my old XP 1.86 is better than hyatts xeons.. it's not true but go >>>>ahead anyway, you did the same with the dual Athlon box. ;) >>> >>>actually i never said her machine was faster than his duals...you werent paying >>>attention. i said her single cpu was beating him every game...not that it was >>>faster...what I_did_say was that his kNs there was waaay lower than what he >>>claimed it was here. Nothing more. Everyone is posting unreasonably high figures >>>here. Tell us what the machine really does within the bounds of the laws of >>>physics...not what you_wish_it would do. I wish mine would get 10,000 kNs but it >>>wont. And until something comes out that will get that speed I will be happy to >>>stick with whatever is best at the time and not have to roast marshmallows on my >>>processors. :-)) >> >>Roasting marshmallows is a bit outdated. That was when Athlon was competing with >>the Pentium 3. The Pentium 4 actually dissipates more heat than Athlon. >> >>-Matt > > >I was only referring to overclocked high end Athlons Matt. The last time I checked thermal data was after the release of the Thoroughbred core (up to AthlonXP 2200). The high-end Athlon part was about 1-2W warmer than the high-end Pentium 4 part (2.53 GHz). I believe the Pentium 4 figures compared were also nominal dissipation values which would imply that the high-end Athlon was actually cooler. Right now Intel claims the Pentium 4 3.06 GHz dissipates 81.8W of heat. I'm not sure whether that is average or maximum so I am making the assumption that it is maximum. The AthlonXP 2700 (2.16 GHz) dissipates 68.3W of heat maximum. I don't have data for the AthlonXP 2800 or AthlonXP 3000, but I doubt either produces even 80W of heat. Pentium 4 - http://www.intel.com/support/processors/pentium4/thermal.htm Athlon - http://www.doerte-richter.de/mulle-78/AMD/amd_term_power.htm -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.