Author: Chris King
Date: 03:06:43 05/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2001 at 23:24:24, Steve Maughan wrote: >Chris, > >>I didn't realize Palms are so slow, according to these figures a Palm IIIx, >>overclocked at 26 mhz, is about 670 times slower than an Athlon 1 ghz. >>Obviously evaluation functions are different but I believe that my mid eighties >>Novag Constellation runs at approx 1,000 NPS on a 2mhz 6502 processor. >>Of course this means that your program must be very good to give a strong game >>on such a slow machine. > > >I'm not 100% sure but I don't think the 2 MHz 6502 could ever reach 1000 nps. >Maybe Ed could verify this as he produced quite a few programs for this >processor. If it did then it would be super dump. As I remember the slow 6502s >could do 100 - 300 nps. The Z80 at 4 Mhz would do about the same. It was a big >jump when the 68000, like the Palm's, came in and the nodes 'hit' 1000 nps. But >these machines were *nowhere* near as knowledge rich as the latest programs. >Richard Lang's were the most intelligent assembler optimised programs but still >not as knowledge rich as something like Chess Tiger. > >Steve Sorry, my Novag Constellation is 3.6 mhz not 2 mhz as I previously stated. I dug out the manual but couldn't find any reference to NPS. I think I read 1000 NPS in a review so it's possible it may have been exaggerated. I don't think the 6502 programs such as the MM4 were all that far behind the 68000 faster ones in terms of playing strength. Chris
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.