Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 12:25:20 03/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 2003 at 11:34:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: see the posted speeds of crafty at the very cheap dual K7 XPs with faster FSB and then compare that with your own speeds. Crafty is a lot faster on those machines than yours. That despite crafty is a cache eater (among the chessprograms, not among specint). >On March 05, 2003 at 10:21:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On March 04, 2003 at 22:47:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 04, 2003 at 17:39:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On March 04, 2003 at 16:32:33, Jay-R Delacruz wrote: >>>> >>>>>Do the deep versions of Fritz, Junior and Shredder support hyper-thread? Can >>>>>someone please tell me before upgrading my PC to try the deep versions? >>>> >>>>I just read email from Frans Morsch. DeepFritz7 gets 5-10% speedup by >>>>hyperthreading. >>>> >>>>Shredder gets more speedup in nodes a second than that, but it gets no speedup >>>>from it as it gets SMP already a far smaller speedup (1.5 or so), so it is >>>>smarter to turn SMT/HT off for it. perhaps shredder8 will fix this. >>>> >>>>For diep it speeds me up about 11% in NPS but i cannot garantuee that at a 4 >>>>processor it will give a positive speedup. >>>> >>>>When running 2 processes at a P4 at 3.06ghz it will give for sure some speedup >>>>because it goes from 100k nps to 120k nps. Nearly 20% speedup it gets with it >>>>(18.6 or something) which gives a positive speedup also in depth. >>>> >>>>For deepjunior we know that it already works bad at 8 processor Xeon 1.6Ghz >>>>versus 4 processor Xeon 1.9Ghz, so i *assume* for now that SMT/HT will not give >>>>it much benefit for it at all, but perhaps Amir or Shay wants to give a >>>>statement regarding this themselves. >>>> >>>>We talk of course about the SMT/HT from Xeon processors up to 2.8Ghz now for >>>>those which have it enabled. For the P4 3.06Ghz and also Xeons of that and above >>>>things are a different matter. >>> >>>You keep saying that. It continues to be _wrong_. The 2.8 xeon has the >>>_exact_ same cpu core (and SMT) that the 3.06 xeon and PIV has. And when I >>>say _exactly_ I mean _exactly_. This is _directly_ from Intel... for the >>>record. >> >>try some better source instead of the marketing department try some hardware >>experts. for example at: http://www.realworldtech.com/index.cfm > > >I don't use "marketing types". And I can send you some dual 3.06 xeon test >results that >mirror my dual 2.8's _exactly_ in terms of the 20% to 30% raw NPS figures. I >sent my >"worst case positions" to someone with one of these machines and he got the >_same_ >20% improvement at 3.06 that I got with my 2.8's. > >Your data is simply wrong. The xeon core has _not_ changed from 2.8ghz to 3.06 >ghz, >and I have no idea why you want to supply your "disinformation" that it has. > >We have four of these on the way (dual 3.06 dell 650s) for faculty. They have >shipped >(2/28) so they should be here any time. I'll run the tests and post the results >to further >debunk this "myth" that 3.06's are different... > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>Best regards, >>>>Vincent
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.