Author: Victor Zakharov
Date: 11:06:03 03/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
>>1) Two processors give 70% speed increase for chess program. Ok. >> But doubling processor speed doesn't speed up computer 2 times too. >> I suspect that speedup is about 70% for most programs too. >> Memory system speed limits speedup. >> May be some people here have benchmarks under their hands and can say >> more exact number. But I am sure that speedup is strongly less than 100% > > > >I hope some people with fast and slow computers will read this and will post >their benchmarks. > >In particular we are very interested in benchmarks for the Athlon 600MHz and the >Athlon 1.2GHz. I hope that there are persons here that will be able to compare nps for some chess programs at Athlon 600MHz and Athlon 1.2GHz. It is essential that conditions were equal. For example, hash size is 64MB and start position. Also it is a good idea about equal motherboard and memory speed (PC133 or PC100). >>2) So the queston is only what is cheaper to buy the processor that >> is two times faster or to buy a second processor. >> For my mind two processors are cheaper. Sure you should have the adequite >> motherboard. >> >> The only problem is that not all the programs support 2 processors. >> But there is another side of the medal. If you run some process on the >> 1 processor computer it uses most processors resources and it is not easy >> to do something else. With two processors you have no this problem. >> >>So personaly I am using two processor board with great pleasure. > > > >That's something else. In my message I try to compute the difference in ELO >between singles and duals, given the compromises you have to do to in order to >get a dual. There are two problems here. 1) Sure it is not reasonable to waste a lot of money for fastest available system. You will not reach too much in chess with it. It is better to buy the strongest program :-). 2) If we consider two processors system and one processor system with the same power the question what is cheaper? I think that for high end systems two processors system is cheaper. For example system with ABIT VP6 motherboard and two PIII-1GHz is cheaper and faster than any P-IV system. And it $300 more expensive that is the one processor 1GHz system. For low end systems the prices are equal. For example the same ABIT VP6 board with two PIII-600 is slightly cheaper than one processor PIII-1GHz system. So you could start with it and update processors to 1GHz when they will be cheap. So I don't consider two processors systems are dead end. But trully speaking these days I would prefer to buy one processor Athlon 1.2GHz system and to update it to stronger AMD processors when they will be available. Intel P-III systems are really dead end as Intel promotes P-IV line. Last one is dead end too because P-IV socket will be changed at the end of this year. AMD will support 2 processors systems soon and a lot of people will be ready to add one more processor for additional $150-$200. Victor
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.