Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 14:35:57 06/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 2000 at 15:44:14, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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. At the same time, it is necessary to improve all aspects of a chess program simultaneously if you want to get anywhere. I have seen a number of people say, "I'm going to finish my eval function, then I can work on the rest of my program." They get nowhere. So, if a person is trying to improve their branching factor, and they can't really think of a way to do it, they should work for the speed optimizations instead of just sitting and scratching their head. -Tom
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.