Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:08:45 03/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 2003 at 15:25:20, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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). I will ask again, for a number > 2.16M nodes per second with Crafty. I have no doubt some box can produce that number, including the 3.06ghz xeons. But to date I have not seen one. I do mean a real number, not a "if I pushed the clock to 2.3ghz it would do this..." type number... We just received our dual 3.06 boxes today. Unfortunately they came with an onboard SCSI controller that supports hardware raid and we had to zap everything to "unraid" the disks. Hopefully I can post some 3.06SMT results tomorrow. These are 3.06 xeons (dual) with 533mhz FSB so it will be interesting to see how they compare to my 2.8ghz with 400mhz FSB. > >>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.