Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 12:44:14 06/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 2000 at 15:07:58, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 07, 2000 at 15:04:17, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On June 07, 2000 at 13:24:19, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On June 07, 2000 at 08:42:20, Laurence Chen wrote: >>> >>>>On June 07, 2000 at 05:16:33, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 07, 2000 at 01:36:16, O. Veli wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I am planning on building a powerful yet cheap PC for chess. AFAIK there is no >>>>>>difference between Pentium III and Celeron chips on chess performance. A dual >>>>>>processor version is better than a single one so a dual Celeron + Deep Junior ( >>>>>>and of course Crafty) will have a strong Elo/$ value (Dual or quad Pentium III >>>>>>is out of my reach). How much Elo would dual Celeron + Deep Junior gain compared >>>>>>to single Celeron + Junior? What other things should I keep in mind on this >>>>>>machine? Thanks. >>>>> >>>>>Your choice is not so simple. Consider: >>>>> >>>>>ABIT BP6 + 2 533 Celerons $350 >>>>> >>>>>ASUS K7V + 1 700 Athlon $350 >>>>> >>>>>Its estimated that a doubling of speed is worth about a 50 rating point gain, so >>>>>we can use the following equation: >>>>> >>>>>73*ln(s1/s2) = Delta R >>>>> >>>>>73*ln(1066/700) = 31 rating points >>>>> >>>>>Now look at the SSDF ratings here: >>>>> >>>>>http://home3.swipnet.se/~w-36794/ssdf/nr000.htm >>>>> >>>>>Fritz 6 is rated 2721 >>>>> >>>>>Junior 6 is rated 2689 (I'm assuming Deep Junior is the same on 1 cpu) >>>>> >>>>>2721 - 2689 = 32 rating points >>>>> >>>>>So someone with the Athlon will do just as well using Fritz 6 as you will using >>>>>the dual Celerons using Deep Junior. Of course, these are _very_ rough >>>>>calculations. >>>>> >>>>>We have assumed that the _relative_ ratings are accurate, that the 50 rating >>>>>point estimate is accurate, that Deep Junior is just as strong as Junior 6 on >>>>>one cpu, that Deep Junior scales up going to 2 cpus with 100% efficiency, etc. >>>>>Clearly, many of these assumptions aren't very reasonable. >>>>> >>>>>The dual cpu system is not everything it is cracked up to be as far as chess >>>>>goes. The quality of the program is just as important as the speed of the >>>>>hardware. But even if Deep Junior is just as good as Fritz 6, you do not gain >>>>>much. >>>>> >>>>>When you get a dual system, your choice of hardware is more limited and your >>>>>choice of software for it that takes advantage of it is more limited. You make >>>>>compromises. I prefer the ASUS motherboard to the ABIT motherboard. The ASUS >>>>>motherboard is the best one for the Athlon. The ABIT motherboard is not the best >>>>>for the Celeron. It's the one you get when you want to run a dual system. >>>>> >>>>>Naturally, there are other reasons for getting a dual system. I hope this helps >>>>>you make your decision. >>>>You forgot to mention about the OS, a dual processor will require Windows NT, or >>>>Windows 2000, since Microsoft no longer sells Windows NT 4, then you have no >>>>choice but buy Windows 2000, the OEM is about U.S. $350.00. >>>>IMHO I don't think that Celerons are suitable as Dual Processors for high end >>>>processing. Celerons are great for Games, or some office suite programs such as >>>>Word Processing, and spreadsheets. >>>>Laurence >>> >>>Celerons are all but identical to Pentiums. I don't know why either chip would >>>be better at something, unless you're talking about some esoteric cache issue. >>> >>>-Tom >> >>Of course Celeron differs: >> >>(1) Smaller L2 cache size -- 128Kb vs. 256Kb (for newer PIIIs) or 512Kb at 1/2 >>CPU speed (for PIIs and older PIIIs). >>(2) Slower bus speed -- 66MHz for older Celerons (vs. 100MHz for PII/PIII at >>that time), 100Mhz for newer ones (vs. 133MHz for new PIIIs). >> >>Both those factors hurts programs with high memory traffic in general, and >>multiprocessor systems in particular, as in "value computers segment" memory >>bandwith must be shared between CPUs. So, I'd not recommend to run CPU-bound >>database application on a dual Celeron system. But for chess program dual >>Celeron must be fine. >> >>Also notice that on dual-CPU system you often have better response time than on >>the single-CPU one (even when that single CPU is faster), so system can appear >>faster that it really is :-) >> >>Eugene > >Yes, there are some differences, but you'll only notice them if you pick your >apps carefully. For computer chess and everyday stuff, Celerons are the same as >Pentiums. > >And BTW, there's usually nothing wrong with running a Celeron at 100MHz FSB. :) > >-Tom I've recommended Celeron to a lot of people. It's a good cost effective CPU. My purpose in my post was to point out that going to a dual system will not create a "killer machine". People make to much out of NPS, when that is not nearly as important as EBF, a decent eval or good move ordering. Too many programmers here seem to try to tune the wrong things. Making a program run 10% faster will give 7 rating points. Big deal. It's hard to get that 10% and there isn't much of a payoff. Lowering the EBF significantly _is_ a big deal. Quality of the algorithm is more important than speed of the hardware. This is a property of combinatorially bounded algorithms.
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.