Author: Adam Oellermann
Date: 05:59:30 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2001 at 07:32:33, stuart taylor wrote: >On August 07, 2001 at 06:44:23, Adam Oellermann wrote: > >> >>>>the 1400 mhz t-bird with one of the top programs can beat some GMs >>>> most of the time. it cant beat some GMs all the time. >>>> and it cant beat all GMs some of the time. >>>> whew---did i cover them all. >>>> >>>> these guys will bite my head off if i say that this system would be GM >>>> level all the time. >>>> >>>> what is your purpose for this purchase. server gaming, personal play, >>>> depends on your purpose. if you plan on playing against your >>>> program yourself, unless you are a GM, then any of the processors >>>> are ok, intel or amd. the 800 mhz amd is cheap now. >>>> if you plan on gaming at one of the chess servers, then you will need >>>> the most mhz that your budget will allow. >>>> >>>> kburcham >>> >>> >>>My true purpose is to get the most feautures and quality and speed possible for >>>many personal uses, at this time, and would like to see how long I can look >>>after it without upgrading again (unless a specific reason makes it necesary for >>>some special business purpose). >>> I'm particularly interested in chess playing use, which is not enough that it >>>beats me easily, but that it provides me with the greatest analysis in a short >>>amount of time for games and positions which I'm trying to analyze. >>> Also, multi-media qualities should be as good as exists today. >>>There should not be a quality in an Intel or anything of 1 Ghz. which isn't >>>atleast as good in the amd 1400 even its weakest point.(for singal CPU, personal >>>uses). >>> But if the only difference in the world between AMD 1400 and 800mhz. is speed >>>alone, and the difference in price is very high, then I'd prefer the 800. >>> >>>If you or anyone can answer me all this, then I would consider that quite a >>>great help. and a mystery buster. >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>>S.Taylor >> >>The benchmarks I read indicate that for multimedia purposes (particularly >>MP3/Windows Media/MPEG etc encoding/deconding) the P4 is way ahead. >>Unfortunately, it is well behind the AMD processors in almost all other areas on >>a MHz for MHz basis, including chess performance. >> >>- Adam > >Does that mean that p4 is just a little quicker for those things? (but that 1400 >mhz. of AMD would be atleast as good as p4 would be, IF it were working at 1 >Ghz)? >S.Taylor The impression I got from the benchmarks (poke around www.tomshardware.com and www.anandtech.com) was that P4 is far ahead on the media codecs, but quite far behind in almost every other area, based on comparison between P4/1700 and Athlon 1400. A pertinent question is do you really need more media performance than an Athlon with a decent graphics card will give you? Given the price difference, and the superiority of the Athlon for most other apps, the media performance may not be a big deal. Until recently, I have been an Intel diehard. The last AMD processor I bought was a 386 - since then I have had Intel 486, Pentium, Pentium MMX, PII, PIII and mobile PIII processors. But the way things are looking right now, my next processor might well be AMD (unless, of course, it's a StrongARM ;-) -Adam
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.