Author: Paul Petersson
Date: 05:43:26 03/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2001 at 12:37:24, Christophe Theron wrote: >On March 27, 2001 at 08:09:48, Paul Petersson wrote: > >>On March 26, 2001 at 18:02:44, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >> >>Hi Christophe! >> >>I think it would be more fair to compare a single CPU machine with the same CPU >>in a dual. > > >That's what I have done in the first paragraph. > >However it is not really useful because in real life you don't have simply the >choice between single CPU X and dual CPU X, but generally it's single CPU X or >dual CPU Y, where Y is significantly slower than X. > > > >> A dual Athlon motherboard is almost impossible to buy anyway. > > >You see what I mean. In real life, you have to make a compromise. > >My intention was to show that after you have done your compromise, what you get >with a dual is hardly better than what you get with a fast, single processor, >PC. > > > >> If you >>look at the most common dual system, a dual P3, things look very interesting. >>For a reasonably small extra cost (mainly an additional CPU) you get a system >>that will run about 75 percent faster for dual capable programs. For now the >>highest speed of a P3 is 1 GHz but soon (sic!) there will be a 1133 MHz which >>will compare very favorably with an Athlon 1200. > > >And at that time you'll be able to buy a faster Athlon. > >Let's compare what is available right NOW. > Right now the only reasonably priced dual motherboards run P3´s. Two P3-750 will cost less than $300 and these can be overclocked up to 1GHz. A motherboard like MS-6321 is about $150. For someone who is capable of putting the parts together himself, this represents the best value for money you can get today. No single Athlon can touch this setup for the same price. Another benefit from choosing a dual is the fact that you are forced to use a better OS than Win9x. It might even turn out to be the biggest benefit of all. > > > >>I have done some testing myself on an old dual Celeron 466@560 MHz. I mainly >>used Crafty and DeepJunior. I got almost exactly the performance increase that I >>expected. Crafty ran three times faster on my dual compared to the Crafty on >>SSDF's list (K6-2/450). > > >Maybe I'm missing something, but three times faster isn't what is expected... > As Bertil pointed out, the 3x is because of Crafty's dislike for the K6. So, now I'm just waiting for GT2 and T14 to add to my ChessBase engines, so they can kibitz along with DF and J6 and the others on my old dual Cely :-)) Paul > >>> >> >>I think this is unclear. Some tests need to be done to see if points are lost or >>not. >>It is probably best to avoid IDE drives when using a program with very >>aggressive tablebase access. By using SCSI drives you could perhaps reduce the >>problems to a minimum. >> >> >>Paul > > > > > > 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.