Author: Pham Minh Tri
Date: 01:17:28 02/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2002 at 14:00:03, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 07, 2002 at 13:06:49, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On February 07, 2002 at 02:04:05, Pham Minh Tri wrote: >> >>>On February 06, 2002 at 16:43:09, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On February 06, 2002 at 14:13:03, Roy Eassa wrote: >>>> >>>>>http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_Story.asp?ID=2965 >>>>> >>>>>"... code that has been recompiled for ARM-based chips is 61 times faster on a >>>>>200MHz ARM processor compared to a 33MHz Dragonball one." >>>>> >>>>>Is that a typo? Did he mean 6 times? >>>>> >>>>>If it's not a typo, how would a factor of 61 (article actually implies factor of >>>>>62 by saying "faster than" rather than "as fast as") affect the rating of such >>>>>apps as Chess Tiger for Palm and ChessGenius for Palm? >>>> >>>>A fairly conservative estimate is 50 ELO increase for each doubling in speed. >>>>With 5.93 doublings, we would have +296.5 ELO increase. >>> >>>Hi Dann, >>> >>>200MHz = 33MHz x 2^n --> n < 2.5 --> we would have max +125 Elo increase ;) >> >> >> >>You are making a huge mistake. >> >>You can't compare the speed in MHz of two processors and conclude about their >>relative computing speed. >> >>The DragonBall used in the current Palms needs more than 10 cycles average to >>execute one instruction. Its a very old architecture (Motorola 68000). >> >>The ARM that is going to be used in the PalmOS 5 handhelds needs about one cycle >>per instruction. >> >>PLEASE: forget about comparing Mhz. >> You all are right and thank for correcting me :) However, that is just a comparison when I have only information about MHz, not NPS. I think most guesses about strengths on speed such as MHz and NPS are not exactly but still give some good information and relative comparisons. >> >> >> Christophe > >There is a smiley after the claim so it seems that the poster knows >that dividing Mhz is not correct way to compare speed. > >There is another mistake(I ignored all the part with the smiley so I ignored it >in my previous post but the mistake is similiar to the previous mistake that >I found) > >If 200=33*2^n you get n>2.5 and not n<2.5 >It seems that Pham Minh Tri solved the equation 200=33*n^2 and not 200=33*2^n > > >Uri
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.