Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 11:52:48 03/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2002 at 09:20:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 25, 2002 at 01:33:46, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On March 24, 2002 at 21:36:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>It seems to me that "absolute performance" is the key to look at. The percent >>>gain crap can be manipulated to no end. Compare _any_ processor available to >>>that 800K node per second value for the 600mhz alpha to see which processor >>>comes _close_. Not a one can do so... The fastest single-cpu Intel box I have >>>tried is a 750mhz PIII. It hits about 320K nodes per second using the same >>>version Tim used. that is 800K/320K = 2.5X faster, yet the alpha was clocked >>>at 600mhz or 80% of the speed of the PIII. Normalizing for that extra 150mhz >>>makes the alpha 21264 3.1 times _faster_. That is significant. And the >>>alpha didn't have any assembler "boosts" which when removed, slow Crafty a >>>significant amount, 15% in fact. Adding this in brings this to 3.65 times >>>faster than an equally-clocked Pentium... >>> >>>That is both significant, not not very "muddy". >> >>Yes, rah rah, go Alpha. But how are we supposed to use these NPS numbers to >>guess how much faster the Hammer will be than the AXP? (Which, BTW, is the issue >>at hand.) >> > > >If you believe Crafty is a good representative benchmark of whatever it is >you want to run on either of those two processors, then simply run it on both >and see which is faster. That is how _I_ benchmark anything... I just Yes, good job, Bob, except that nobody here will have access to a Hammer for the better part of a year. If you want to do something interesting, you can build Crafty so it only uses 32-bit ints on an Alpha and compare that to the 64-bit int version. -Tom
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.