Author: Paul Petersson
Date: 21:03:11 08/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2000 at 20:48:50, Dann Corbit wrote: >On August 08, 2000 at 20:40:36, Paul Petersson wrote: > >>On August 08, 2000 at 12:54:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 08, 2000 at 09:25:50, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: >>> >>>>On August 08, 2000 at 09:06:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>They are the hottest things around, at present. >>>> >>>>Run an AMD at 2GHz and it will become hotter ;-) >>> >>> >>>Yes. But I am not interested in "temperature". With Crafty, the 667mhz >>>21264 will toast the 2gig AMD or Pentium... >>> >>>:) >> >>Are you sure? A P3/1GHz will do about 600kN, so a 2GHz would do at least 1MN. >I get 268,138 NPS for a 500 MHz PIII running the bench command (which does a mix I guess you have the "Katmai" P3. The Coppermine is about 10-15 percent faster than Katmai. I still think a 1GHz should get at least 550kN possibly even close to 600. >of instructions), which would make about 500K for 1GHz and 1M for 2GHz >(roughly). However, I don't think a 2GHz pentium or athlon chip exists and >667MHz alpha chips are ancient history. > The fastest I know about is the 1.5 GHz Athlon/Thunderbird from Kryotech. But I guess Crafty doesn't run very well on the Athlon. >But I am guessing they would come out fairly similarly. > Me too. >All in all the technology for the Alpha machines is definitely superior. I >suspect when you factor in the tablebase access, hashing, etc. the Alpha would >still be ahead of the 'hypothetical' 2GHz X86 architecture. Why would the tablebase access be any better on the Alpha? Paul
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.