Author: Mark Young
Date: 13:18:35 07/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 1998 at 15:16:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 10, 1998 at 13:39:42, Mark Young wrote: > >>On July 10, 1998 at 06:53:00, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>>Posted by Kim Hvarre on July 10, 1998 at 05:46:37: >>> >>>>In Reply to: Re: Cool AMD 450 Mhz.... posted by Robert Hyatt on July 10, >>>>1998 at 00:35:52: >>> >>>>On July 10, 1998 at 00:35:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>snipsnip >>> >>>>>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.. >>> >>>>Qouting from Ed's benchmarkpage: >>> >>>>Pentium PRO 200 1:02 7:38 1:57 0:19 4:56 0:26 >>>>Cyrix 200 1:22 10:12 2:20 0:17 3:45 0:22 >>>>AMD K6 200 0:47 5:50 1:30 0:15 3:45 0:20 >>> >>>>one must (?) conclude, that the Rebelcode has "known-to-be-bad stuffed tucked >>>>away" or? >>> >>>I do not think the better performance of Rebel on AMD in comparison with >>>Intel chips is related to the code. Rebel since version 6 is a normal >>>32-bit application. >>> >>>From postings from other programmers I noticed that AMD also runs their >>>programs faster than Intel. >>> >> >>Im not sure why AMD runs some programs faster. Most programs run faster on the P >>II chip. But most chess programs run faster on AMD, but not all. I have asked >>many time why this is so. One programmer told me it was due to the code and how >>it was compiled. I think Bob has said his program runs best on the intel chip. >> > >actually, in my case, I can't tell 'em apart, if the clocks are the same. IE >the first AMD K6/233 I tried was about 15% faster than a pentium pro 200, which >is about what you'd expect comparing only clock frequency. > > Correct that how I should of stated it. Crafty is not getting a boost in perforence out of a K6 chip. As Rebel and some other chess programs do. So crafty running on a K6 233 is not like Crafty running on a P II 300 as in the case with Rebel. > >>>At the moment AMD by far is simply the best processor around. >>> >>>But the Intel (slot-2) is coming, will it out-perform AMD? >>> >>>Maybe, but certainly not in price. The last I read the chip will cost $4500. >>> >>>I pity Intel :) >>> >>>- Ed - >>> >>> >>>>As You know these figures are average from several users. Perhaps the diff. >>>>comes from the L1 cache - I don't remember where PP differ from K6 in that >>>>respect. >>> >>>>kim
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.