Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: . . . M O R E . . . S P E E D . . .

Author: Keith Long

Date: 13:51:23 08/15/03

Go up one level in this thread


On August 15, 2003 at 16:48:31, William Penn wrote:

>WP,
>I did a Shreddermark but consider it irrelevant. That's of no interest to me.
>What matters to me is the kN/s in infinite analysis mode. Nothing else.


The Shreddermark is based on nodes per second so i don't see why it wouldn/t
matter to you, what was it anyway?
>WP
>
>
>On August 15, 2003 at 16:32:00, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote:
>
>>Bill,
>>
>>What is your Shredder Mark?
>>
>>TJF
>>
>>PS Get an AMD Processor....much faster than Celerons.
>>
>>On August 15, 2003 at 16:27:54, William Penn wrote:
>>
>>>I have had a 500MHz Celeron/256MB system for quite a few years. I just bought a
>>>new 2.6GHz Celeron/512MB computer and was expecting my chess software to run
>>>about 5X faster. It doesn't!? After considerable comparisons and benchmarking,
>>>it's clear that it runs about 2.2X faster. My tests & benchmarks are based on
>>>kN/s in infinite analysis mode using various practical chess positions and the
>>>Shredder 7.04 UCI engine in the CB GUI.
>>>
>>>What is the most important single other factor (besides processor speed) that
>>>would increase the speed of this engine in terms of kN/s? I'm sure that more RAM
>>>wouldn't do very much. Is it "BUS speed", or "memory speed", or "processor cache
>>>size", or "processor type", or what? I'm not interested in minor factors, just
>>>the most important one.
>>>WP



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.