Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 12:32:38 03/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2001 at 14:06:03, Victor Zakharov wrote: >>>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 I have tucked away somewhere nps on fritz gui for pentiums from 200 mhz (memory recal) to a amd 1.2 ghz t-bird. ane the results are rather predictable and linear. If i can find i will post wayne
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.