Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 23:34:57 06/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 01:47:02, David Mitchell wrote: >On June 14, 2004 at 21:25:48, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On June 14, 2004 at 21:07:03, David Mitchell wrote: >> >>>On June 14, 2004 at 20:43:04, Jim wrote: >>> >>>>In your opinion what is the best processor to have for chess programs? >>>>I have noticed on the SSDF rating list that the Athlon 1200 is used >>>>for the higher rated chess programs. >>>>I also read at one time on this site that the Pentium processor's >>>>do not perform as well with chess program's. >>>>Your opinion is greatly appreciated. >>>>Jim >>> >>>The "best" CPU for chess programs will depend on the program, but in general: >>> >>>1) Opteron >>>2) Xeon >>>3) Itanium >>>4) Centrino >>>5) Athlon >>>6) Pentium III >>>7) Pentium 4 >>> >>>The above assumes ** equal speed ** of the processor (which is never the case), >>>and the program being optimized for that processor. Even within a single CPU, >>>different versions have different sizes of cache, etc., again changing their >>>capability. >>> >>>After AMD's strong showing with their new Opteron, you know that Intel is >>>working hard on a new 64 bit processor. When it is released, the list will >>>certainly change. >>> >>>The above is my opinion, and certainly not the result of some exhaustive tests. >>> >>>Dave >> >>Current Xeon chips are P4's with more L2 cache and multiprocessor support. Their >>performance in chess programs are identical to Pentium 4 chips. The older Xeon >>with the P3 core is identical to the Pentium 3 in chess speed, etc. > >Respectfully disagree, Aaron. A processor with identical chip, but a larger L2 >cache, should definitely be a faster CPU for most chess programs, given the same >clock speed, etc.. > >Anytime you can limit time consuming fetches from main memory, you're speeding >things up. > >Thanks for the info on the CPU cores, however. > >Dave I've run tests with various L2 cache sizes, Dave. The highest speedup I observed was between the Tbred & Barton, which was less than 1%. Test it for yourself if you'd like to see. There is absolutely no way adding a little bit of L2/L3 cache it is going to magically knock the performance up over 60% in a chess engine, because basically thats what it'll take for a Xeon (p4 core) to overtake an 'old' Athlon XP/MP. My dual Athlon MP 2.5GHz is 40-50% faster than a dual Xeon 2.8GHz in crafty, for example. With optimized versions of Crafty (one binary for the P4, one for the XP) I show the Athlon XP/MP is about 60% faster MHz for MHz vs a Xeon/P4. The Athlon XP 2800+ (Tbred core, 166/333fsb) is 2250MHz. 2250*1.6=3600. So, an Athlon XP 2800+ == a theoretical Xeon 3.6 In 32bit chess programs an Athlon FX is 20-30% faster than an Athlon XP in chess, and the Athlon FX-53 is 2.4GHz. Which would be like running a 2.88-3.12GHz Athlon XP.. which would be like running a P4/Xeon at 4.6-5.0GHz. Now, throw it in 64bit mode and it's even more of an annihilation. :) As Hyatt reported, I believe a single Opteron 2.2 in 64bit mode at crafty was faster than his dual Xeon 2.8GHz box. So, in reality, the list would be like this for a MHz for MHz comparison: #1: Athlon FX 939 pin (low latency DDR, non-registered/non-ECC memory) #2: Athlon 64 754 pin (same ram as 939) #3: Opteron / Athlon FX 940 pin (registered+ECC, higher latency) #4: Centrino (souped up Pentium 3) #5: Athlon XP / MP (Tbred/Barton cores) #6: Pentium 3 (Coppermine/Tualatin) / Xeon (P3 core) #7: Pentium 4 (Northwood) / Xeon (P4 core) #8: Pentium 4 (Prescott, runs about 20% slower than Northwood at chess per MHz)
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.