Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:32:53 07/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 1998 at 20:34:27, Mark Young wrote: >On July 09, 1998 at 18:52:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 09, 1998 at 18:37:15, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>I just received some information from Rob at Kryotech who is the hardware >>>sponsor for the Rebel-Anand match. >>> >>>On the BT-16 position Rebel9 with 28 Mb hash reported 19,434,138 nodes >>>after a full 9 ply search. >>> >>>On a PII-266 Rebel9 needed 4:03 to do the 9 ply search. >>> >>>The Kryotech AMD-450 only needs 1:45 (!!) >>> >>>It's a beast this machine, no doubt.... >>> >>>When I get the machine next week I will do the bench mark test and >>>put the results on the Rebel Bench Mark List. >>> >>>- Ed - >> >> >>If you would (a) dump DOS, (b) go to WinNT, you could do a parallel search >>and run on one of the quad 450mhz pentium II (Xeon) that have just been >>announced. > >>The Xeon will toast the AMD clock for clock, > >The Xeon core is still the well-known 'Deschutes' core, used in the Pentium II >as well as in the Celeron processor. And the benchmarks I have seen show no >performance advantage over the Deschutes in a one-chip configuration. So I would >think that the AMD chip is still the chip for ED to use until he does a parallel >search with rebel. But you are right the PII and the Xeon is faster clock for >clock running most programs, but not Rebel in dos. > >>and 4 of 'em would >>be one fast machine. And there will be 8 processor versions by September. >> >>But, alas, not for dos nor win95/98. the core hasn't changed, that's correct. However Xeon behaves just like the original P6 chip, where the cache now operates at full cpu clock speed, rather than being able to deliver data to the cpu only on every other clock cycle. My first benchmark on a PII/300 showed 1.41 times faster than a P6/200. That missing .09 (20%) is caused by the 1/2 speed cache on the PII. If you take this up to the PII/400, you begin to see a significant performance loss when compared to a P6/200, factoring in the 2x faster clock not giving anywhere near 2x the cpu performance. Xeon will. The 450 should clock in just as you'd expect with crafty, running 2.25X faster. You aren't going to run an AMD at 450 yet, which means that the Xeon will "toast" it pretty thoroughly. And when you factor in quad processors, it's no contest, and AMD hasn't been able to make a multi- processor specification that anyone is willing to implement...
This page took 0.03 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.