Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 08:24:01 07/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2004 at 10:52:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Correct me if I am wrong, but the issue was "how much faster would falcon have >to go to eliminate the hardware advantage Crafty had?" Yes something like that I think. >I believe I answered that as clearly as possible. It was _not_ a factor of 4x >faster. It was exactly as I stated... It _could_ have been a bit more, perhaps >10%, but that didn't happen. The thing that bothers me is the way you judge some factors to be important while other factors "aren't your problem". And it's always in a way that seeks to downplay your hardware advantage. >It seems (to me) irrelevant as to what falcon _might_ have been able to do. IE >if it was a 32 bit application on a 64 bit machine, that was a choice made by >the programmer since 64 bit operating systems are available for the Opteron. I >simply responded to the above question... I understood at first that it was running 32 bit, now after reading the thread again I'm not so sure. I think what is clear is that is was a quad opteron 2.4 GHz versus single amd64 2.0 GHz. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the Opterons has more cache too, so the most primitive estimate here would probably be around a 5 times faster box. Then you lose something to inferior compilers and search overhead and Falcon might do the same (was it 32 bit?). Maybe not an easy estimate with the software and kernel issues, but it appears closer to a factor 4 than factor 3 if you count everything, IMO. -S.
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.