Author: Mark Young
Date: 18:56:06 07/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 1998 at 21:32:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... The benchmarks I have seen this did not happen. The faster Cache did not help the Xeon chip over the P II when running just a single program. Now when the chip was made to multi-task thats when the chip had about a 3% to 25% boost over the P II running at the same clock speed. If this was not done the Xeon and the P II benched the same.
This page took 0.01 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.