Author: stuart taylor
Date: 08:21:09 10/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 2004 at 08:38:03, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On October 25, 2004 at 22:55:14, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On October 25, 2004 at 18:29:05, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>On October 25, 2004 at 11:58:31, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>I think it's approaching 4 years now that I got my 1.4 Ghz. AMD computer and >>>>setup, being determined that this time, I'd wait untill speed is tripled before >>>>upgrading again. I was determined that I might even be prepared to wait for over >>>>2 years, this time, and would not give in, until it has tripled, AND is at >>>>reasonable price. >>>>But AMD has not yet even reached 2.8 Ghz. which is double. The 64 bit makes only >>>>a very slight difference. So what great accomplishment have I gained with a new >>>>computer even NOW? (other small things for other small purposses were also >>>>almost sufficient [in my computer of] almost 4 years ago, though, I hadn't been >>>>able to exploit all its uses for personal reasons, of not having my own living >>>>quarters). >>>> >>>>I'm however, aiming at getting the best laptop for chess as soon as possible. >>>>Can someone tell me a) which that is now, and b) which it will be soon? >>>>Thanks! >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>>There are a number of reasons, which you can figure out by reading the various >>>hardware sites on the net. >>> >>>However, don't forget multiple cores/cpus! 4 years ago it would have been almost >>>impossible to buy a dual CPU system, while in another year or two I bet you'll >>>be able to get a 4 core opteron for <3000$, which should be 6x faster than your >>>Athlon 1.4 or so ;) Of course all good chess programs can use multiple >>>processors ;) >>> >>>anthony >> >>Excuse my ignorance! Do you mean that more than one proccessor (cpu) can be put >>into one computer, and used as a normal singal computer? If so, is that the >>reason why cpu speed has not been increasing so quickly, being there no need for >>it, with this option available??? >>S.Taylor > >Yes, no, no. > >For example, Gothmog on my 2x1.8 opteron is the same speed as Gothmog on a 1x1.8 >opteron, because the program isn't parallelized. Programs that *are* parallel, >however, will be about 1.7-2.0x faster, depending on how well they are written. > >The list of parallel programs: > >x2 CPUS only: Baron, Zappa (buggy on >2, but I'm going to fix that ;) > >x4 or more: Crafty, Diep, Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Sjeng, SOS > >The reason people are turning to multiple cores is that while the number of >transistors available is increasing, the time it takes a signal to cross a chip >is also increasing :) The Pentium 4 has entire pipeline stages that do nothing >but move data across the chip. Since the designers have all that real estate >anyway, they might as well plunk down another core or twelve ;) > >anthony With your few lines, as well as other lines written in this thread alone, I might now understand so much more of what I might read in computer magazines. It will now give me much more of the picture. Thanks very much. S.Taylor
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.