Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 20:47:46 06/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2003 at 23:21:34, Peter Stayne wrote: >Ya like I said, hard to compare since our evals are very different. look at the >node counts at each ply for one thing. > >the 11 second score I consider superfluous, since we don't have millisecond >resolution. If Fritz rounds up, then that could be 11.0 or 11.999 seconds. or >normal rounding could be 10.5 to 11.49999, which would give us sizable >differences in kn/s. as we get into the >50 seconds, that difference becomes >much less. Indeed, but you also posted a result < 50 seconds, so I posted my closest result. >Really, in either of our tests, there is no comparable point for a good >comparison, since it's obvious both of ours are examining different lines to >different depths of varying ease of evaluation on the cpu. Both of ours waver >between the same numbers. > >You win price/performance by a long shot! (that is, if we're purely talking >about chess :) ). The Dual Athlon 2.4 isn't "only" fast at chess.. I've done video encoding, mp3 encoding, chess, kernel compiles, all retardedly fast.. :) Any benchmark you'd like to do, let me know.. I'll run it for ya. I think you'd be surprised. :) Especially in RC5, where I believe this 2x2.4 is roughly 3x faster than a dual Xeon 3.06. If you're interested in trying the RC5 (72bit decryption) benchmark, I'll put up a copy on my FTP. >Then again, we'll both be owned by the Opterons if early results are to be >believed.
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.