Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Why is P4 less efficient than Athlon (or P3) for chess programs ?

Author: Tom Kerrigan

Date: 13:48:07 07/03/03

Go up one level in this thread


On July 03, 2003 at 16:23:10, Russell Reagan wrote:

>On July 03, 2003 at 15:02:55, Joachim Rang wrote:
>
>>The main reason is, that Athlon and P3 have 9 instructions per cycle and P4 has
>>only 6.
>
>Also the length of the pipeline on the P3 is 10, which means that a mispredicted
>branch costs 10 cycles. On the P4 the length of the pipeline is 20, which means
>it costs 20 cycles for a mispredicted branch. I may be wrong about the actual
>numbers (10 and 20, but I think they are close). I'm not sure what the length is
>on the Athlon. Anyone know?

Pentium 3: 12 cycles
Pentium 4: 20 cycles
Athlon: 10 cycles
Opteron/Athlon 64: 12 cycles

In addition to unpredictable branches and parallelism, the P4 also has 8k of L1
cache vs. the Athlon's 64k. The P4's cache is faster, but that may not make up
for the difference in size with typical chess programs.

-Tom



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.