Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:35:52 07/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 1998 at 21:56:06, Mark Young wrote: >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. Somehow our benchmarks are different. First, I don't see how the Xeon is better at context-switching than a normal PII.. that is independent of cache completely. however, I have benched my P6/200 vs PII/300's and get 1.41 every time I try, using crafty. The first benchmark data I got on a Xeon (source I can't reveal) was exactly 2.25X faster than what I am getting on my P6/200. This makes sense as crafty has no MMX code whatsoever, so that both processors are using the same core technology and relative cache speeds. But note that I am a real 32-bit application here with no known-to-be-bad stuff tucked away to hurt performance. For comparison, the AMD K6 seems a perfect match for the P6/200 when the clocks are matched... But the Xeon is clocked faster..
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.