Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: WMCCC - may the best man at getting the fastest hardware win :(

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 11:11:26 10/22/97

Go up one level in this thread

On October 22, 1997 at 13:20:08, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>On October 22, 1997 at 09:55:03, Chris Whittington wrote:
>>I expected a few p2 300's. Don't really approve, but their advantage is
>>not going to be 3.5 x as with liquid nitrogen cooled alphas, is it ?
>Good question.  I have no idea what the difference is between a K6/233
>and a PII/300.
>I can give you some hard number for Alpha, but not for a 767 mhz Alpha.
>With my program, running an Enorex 500 mhz Alpha (1mb cache), it appears
>that the Alpha is 1.5x faster than my P6/200.  This is based upon a run
>of the LCTI test at 210 seconds per position (98 minutes total).
>Running on a Polywell 533 mhz Alpha (2mb cache), mine goes 1.75x faster
>than my P6/200, based upon the same test.
>I have heard that a K6/233 is faster than a P6/200.

we have K6/233's running on ICC.  they are 15-20% faster than my P6/200.
so let's call it 1.2X for simplicity.  Your 500mhz alpha is 1.5X.  I'm
to (most likely) run on a 500mhz alpha.  Am I therefore now "within the
spirit" or not???

BTW, a PII/300 can easily be 1.5X a P2/300 with the right coding style.
if the PII/300 is "on the same field" then the 500 alpha has to be
too... they
seem similar.

*EXCEPT* that crafty runs like hell on an alpha compared to a P6,
because of
all the 64bit stuff I use.  So how do we compare now?  Crafty on a P6 vs
Crafty on an Alpha?

If so, I want to compare fritz on a P6 to Fritz on an alpha.  Wait?
can't do that right?  Because of the assembly problem?  So my extra
burst of speed shouldn't be counted either in the performance comparison
I am not using assembly language...

It is *not* an easy issue to wave off as fair/unfair...

This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.