Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:23:26 03/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2001 at 15:00:51, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>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?
>
>The problem is even worse. There are no 2Ghz AMD processors
>and there are no 2 Ghz PIII processors yet, so the only option is
>to buy a dual!!!!!
>
>>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.
>
>Talking about price is not relevant here.
>
>Some people buy expensive ferrari but are not allowed to drive faster
>on the highway as i am allowed with my car.
>
>The real problem here is that Christophe tries to defend the statement
>that duals are not worth buying, which is essential the same statement as
>saying that buying a faster single cpu is not worth buying!
Can you quote a single sentence in my original message that says that duals are
not worth buying?
No you can't.
What I notice is that you conclude this yourself from what I have written. ;)
On my side, I have just written that by buying a dual you will get, if you have
a SMP chess program, 25 additional elo points, unless you are ready to pay for a
really bigger amount of money. And that 25 elo points means winning 3.5
additional games out of 100.
From this you conclude that buying a dual is not worth it. Your words.
I have only given some hard facts for people considering to buy one. So they
understand what they get for their money.
Christophe
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.