Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 22:37:05 02/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 2003 at 00:46:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 22, 2003 at 22:17:50, Matt Taylor wrote: > >>On February 22, 2003 at 20:22:38, Charles Worthington wrote: >> >>>On February 22, 2003 at 18:16:43, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>> >>>>On February 22, 2003 at 16:43:58, Matt Taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>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 >>>> >>>>The 81 watt figure is the average wattage, 110 watts is the maximum figure. In >>>>Intels Pentium 4 tech docs under the wattage listing it says this: >>>> >>>>"The numbers in this column reflect Intel’s recommended design point and are not >>>>indicative of the maximum power the processor can dissipate under worst case >>>>conditions. For more details refer to the Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor in the >>>>478-Pin Package Thermal Design Guidelines." >>> >>> >>>I am unfamiliar with the Athlon XP3000. Is it a 3 GHz single cpu? and why aren't >>>we seeing it in the field yet? >> >>They are available for purchase right now and have been since Feb. 10th. Dell >>and Gateway don't sell them -- Intel forced Dell and Gateway to stop selling AMD >>machines back around the 1 GHz wars. HP is the only major company I know of that >>sells AMD CPUs. >> >>The AthlonXP 3000 is 2.13 GHz (13x166). It features 512 KB of L2 cache and a 166 >>MHz FSB (2.7 GB/sec). It is not available in multiprocessor form yet just as the >>Xeon 3.06 GHz technically isn't either. > > > >The 3.06 xeons are available in duals, at least from Dell. The Xeon "MP" >designation is only important for quads and beyond, and so far as I know I >haven't even seen a 2.8 MP yet. <snip> Yes, and there's a bit of controversy over that. Intel shipped Dell some chips early. Intel has not released the Xeon 3.06 GHz yet, but Dell is selling them. This is why I said the Xeon 3.06 GHz technically isn't released yet. I did not know that there even -was- a Xeon MP chip. I figured all of them ran 2-way or 4-way. I was talking about plain duals anyway. Intel isn't selling the Xeon 3.06 GHz, but Dell is. I find that somewhat funny. I figure AMD will release something soon to compete with the Xeon 3.06 GHz (whenever Intel officially launches it). AMD has something like 166 MHz of headroom between their MP and XP lines, and they still need to introduce Barton MP chips. I was planning on picking up a low-end pair later on this year after Clawhammer and Opteron drive prices cheap. :-) -Matt
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.