Author: Peter Stayne
Date: 21:25:31 06/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
AMD's dominance of rc5 and ogr is easily explained, there is a variant of the ROT assembly command available on the amd's that are not on the Intel chips, Intels have to do the same thing in software. I've been far less ferverent with d.net stuff lately, so my ranking may have slipped a bit :) I'm peter_milkman@hotmail.com on there. I bought this sytem based off of benchmarks of quite a few different applications. Firstly, germaine to this forum, I had heard that AMD's were faster in chess, but not much. And now, I feel pretty secure that my system is at least on par with the Athlons. Secondly, my website (which is only in an ugly, functional, non marketed state at http://www.abstractvoice.com ) is now accepting music. I've written a VB app to automatically download posted MP3's and encode low bitrate versions. I checked various bench sites and the Intel chips beat the Athlons in the industry standard LAME encoder, which is what I use. Thirdly, games. The games I play are based off the Quake 3 engine, which favor the intel chips. Fourthly, my 3d Studio Max runs much faster on Xeons than MP's. Don't get me wrong, I'm an AMD fan, my last 3 boxes were all oc'd Athlons, and my next box will be as well (Opterons). But for what I need one for right now, this was my best choice. Pete On June 26, 2003 at 23:47:46, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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 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.