Author: stuart taylor
Date: 09:58:51 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2001 at 08:59:30, Adam Oellermann wrote: >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 I never seem to get good streaming video neither on my old AMD K6-3 (with very good graphics card, nor (though maybe slightly better) with my fathers new P-3 850 mhz.(regular card). I don't like the jumping and freezing/skipping. and sometimes, the lack of being able to catch the moving details as well as it maybe could. Does this make it clearer? Thanks S.Taylor
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.