Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 16:55:22 11/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2003 at 17:38:38, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On November 11, 2003 at 08:50:53, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>It would be better had they used a quad or 8-way Opteron running 2GHz or more. >>From some testing I've done in the past you can figure a single Opteron 2GHz == >>a P4-3.6GHz in Fritz 8 (32bit mode). So, a Quad Opteron 2.0 == Quad P4-3.6. >>Almost 30% faster, plus the memory bandwidth available would probably push it a >>bit over that with large hash table sizes. 8-way Opteron 2.0 would of course be >>like 8 p4-3.6's (however with some 40gb/s+ memory bandwidth available depending >>on bus speed). >> >>Why not use the best hardware? Seems like if you'd want to promote your new >>'awesome' chess program you'd want to give it the best chance of winning. > >I am not so sure that for SMP program that is not NUMA-aware quad Opteron will >be faster than quad Xeon, even if single-CPU Opteron is faster than single-CPU >Xeon. > >At least it was so for Crafty. Before we modified it to be NUMA-aware, 1.8GHz >Opteron was faster than 1.5GHz Itanium, but quad 1.4GHz Itanium was faster than >quad 1.5GHz Opteron. Actually, Itanium was slightly faster even on 2 CPUs. > >Thanks, >Eugene Fritz doesn't run on the Itanium platform that I'm aware of.. not without emulation. All of the Itanium emulation I've seen runs like a 486.. so.. back to the 4 to 8-way Opteron arguement I go. :)
This page took 0.02 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.