Author: Keith Ian Price
Date: 19:31:15 11/15/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 1997 at 14:39:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 15, 1997 at 04:40:15, Keith Ian Price wrote: > >>On November 14, 1997 at 22:23:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 14, 1997 at 21:22:36, Keith Ian Price wrote: >>> >>>>On November 14, 1997 at 08:18:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 14, 1997 at 01:52:31, Keith Ian Price wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 13, 1997 at 12:19:31, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>see article: http://www.currents.net/newstoday/97/11/11/news5.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Interesting article. Lots of power 400 to 700 MHZ, >>>>>>>Lots of RAM (up to 3 gigabytes). >>>>>>>128 bit cache (up to 4 megabytes L3) >>>>>>>64 bit power >>>>>>>Native Windows NT 5.0, no translation needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I hope this puts pressure on Intel!! :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Looks like 1998 might bring some competition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Best Regards, >>>>>>>Chris Carson >>>>>> >>>>>>Intel plans to have a 450 Mhz Pentium II by the end of 1998 with a >>>>>>100Mhz bus and 2MB of 450 MHz L2 cache. With this size and speed of >>>>>>cache, I think that for computer chess, this Intel machine will easily >>>>>>outdistance a 600Mhz cheap Alpha, and would be price competitive with >>>>>>the 600 Mhz Alphas from DEC at that time. Which should be half the price >>>>>>they are today. Merced--IA64--due in 1999, should reach 1 Ghz by the end >>>>>>of 2000. This is, of course, still an unknown player. I think they feel >>>>>>the pressure. >>>>>> >>>>>>kp >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Of course, within the year DEC's 21264 will be out, so comparing with >>>>>the >>>>>PII/450 is a poor comparison. How would a PII/450 compare to a 21264 at >>>>>one gigahertz? >>>> >>>>I thought we were talking about cheap Alphas. Not $10,000+ Alphas. With >>>>price and compatibility taken into consideration, I'd take the PII 450, >>>>which will be more than half the speed, most likely. Almost doubling >>>>speed for an additional $5000-8000 is not an option for me. Which is why >>>>600 Mhz Alphas don't really compare to a $2500 PII-300 today. >>>> >>>>kp >>>> >>> >>>Notice that you can go buy a 533 mhz alpha for under 5,000 bucks right >>>now, >>>which is about what you'd pay for a good PII/300. >> >>I can get a very nice PII-300 for $2499 from Quantex right now, with 8.4 >>gig 9ms hard drive and 64 MB. The new LX chipset and AGP card are also >>included with 17-in.monitor. And weren't you talking about the 21264? >> > >Depends. If you are talking about a PII/300, then I'm talking about a >21164, which I can buy for not quite 2x what you paid, and which is more >than twice as fast. But only on Crafty. And 2X speed for 2X money is a bad deal on higher-end computers unless you're Dollar Bill Gates. 2X speed doesn't even get you another ply, so performance at today's levels requires 10X speed for it to be worth 2X $2500. >But you also mentioned a PII/450 next year, and for that I'd compare it >to >the 21264/1000, or maybe even only /800, which will likely be available >at >less than 2x the cost atain, and provide more like 3x the speed. > >Poing being Intel isn't the only company. I love the P6. I'll love the >P6 >when it is re-released to replace th PII, early next year. But they >don't >come anywhere near the alpha. And when you factor price/performance, >the >alpha still looks real good. IE 2x the PII/300 performance at less than >2X the cost. But 2X is not enough for chess. And 3X is not worth an extra $6000 for the 21264. >>>And running Crafty, that >>>533 mhz alpha would be about twice as fast. >> >>The 533 Mhz Alpha would definitely not be twice as fast as the PII-300 >>running anything but Crafty, and I was pretty sure I heard you tell >>Chris Whittington that it was only 20-25% faster than his PII-300, not >>twice as fast. > > >Sorry, but we got better data. Here are the *real* numbers, just for >discussion: our "benchmark" suite of 6 positions, 2 each from opening, >middlegame and endgame, averages 80K nodes per second on our P6/200's. >On the 500mhz alpha, this same test suite runs at 250K nodes per second >average. which is 3.1X faster. > >The PII/300 we have here (running both linux and NT) is not quite 1.5X >faster than my P6/200, which is about what is expected. But this >*still* >leaves the alpha at 2x faster. > >The first numbers we discussed were numbers Bruce provided (/533 = 1.75X >faster than his P6/200) but were based on a program that does almost >everything >in 32bit mode, while crafty does almost everything with 64bit words. I >get a >lot more. So you agree, only Crafty would improve by the 2X speed. >> >>>IE the PII/300 is not quite 1.5X faster than the P6/200 due to the poor >>>L2 cache clock speed. The alpha/500 is 3.1 times faster than the P6/200 >>>running Crafty. >> >>Is this what you told Chris? I thought Bruce said that it was 1.5-1.75 >>times as fast as the P6-200, running Ferret. > >this is correct. I didn't have the /500 numbers at the time. Jason ran >these tests after getting to Paris and playing around with compiler >options >on our 500 mhz alpha over there. the 533 should be 5% faster than this >or >so, based on clock speed... > > >> >>>By the time you can buy a PII/450, you will certainly be able to buy an >>>alpha/600 for the same price-level, and run faster. >> >>I think the PII-450 will be faster than the Alpha 600 running most chess >>programs, probably even Crafty. The 2MB of L2 cache at 450 Mhz is more >>important than the extra 150 Mhz. If the Alpha is slightly faster >>(running the one chess program I will be able to compile >>natively-Crafty), it won't be noticeable, but the software >>non-compatibility will be. > >I disagree, but we'll have to wait to see. But the PII/300 is less than >1/2 >as fast as the 500mhz alpha. So it has a ways to catch up... >>>And it won't be >>>long, >>>after the 1ghz alphas come out, that the 750mhz version will be >>>price-competitive with Intel. >> >>And when Merced comes out, the PII-300 will be entry level for $1000 >>bucks, so what? >> >> >>>And then there are the PPC's which are already faster than the pentium >>>machines, unfortunately, and getting faster. They will be at 1ghz >>>before >>>the alpha apparently... >> >>The G3 has a better shot than the Alpha. But it's still a long shot. I'm >>not an Intel supporter. I've been programming computers since 1968, and >>the first Intel machine I bought was a 486. I've always been a >>value-for-money person, and right now, Intel or K6 is it. I'd love it if >>Digital could come out with a machine that blows the doors off anything >>else. I used to love the old PDP-11 I had, and I used to run Checkmo, a >>DECUS program that played horrible chess on a PDP-8, but it was fun to >>watch. I'll buy whatever I think represents the best value. >> >>kp > >They have the machine you describe, because nothing Intel has is even >close to >the alpha. But it is pricier. Of course part of this is caused by the >fact >that the intel products (at present) pump 64 bits over the bus to feed >32bit >superscalar execution units. The alpha pumps 128 and 256 bits over the >buss >to feed 64bit superscalar units. Merced is not going to be a linear >increase >in cost. Doubling the buss width to feed a real 64bit processor is not >going >to come cheap, and will narrow the gap between intel and digital pricing >I >suspect. How much it closes the performance gap (if any) is unknown at >present of course... Still, the PII-450 will be at least 10X times my current P150s, which makes it worth the extra cost over the cheap 150 non-MMX units I just bought in September. 2 or 3X isn't worth thousands of dollars to me. Just a difference in perception, I guess. Then again, I don't have to try to win the WMCCC next year, so I can afford to wait. Nice discussing things with you, Bob. kp
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.