Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: I dissagree!

Author: Terry McCracken

Date: 08:30:51 04/03/02

Go up one level in this thread


On April 03, 2002 at 10:58:20, Steve Maughan wrote:

>Jorge,
>
>While I am (only!) interested in the speed of chess programs I have to disagree
>that they are better than Q3 for general benchmarking.  Chess programs measure
>the performance of three elements of a system - raw integer processing speed,
>cache size/speed and general memory speed.  There are other elements such as
>floating point ability and graphical performace which are not tested by the
>chess programs but are utilised by Q3.  Finally, hard disk / file access
>performace isn't really measured by either (I don't consider TB access a
>definitive test).  So I'm happy to see a Q3 FPS but I'd also love the see a
>FritzMark or Crafty nps score as well!!
>
>Regards,
>
>Streve

I agree, but few do benchmarks for chess, and it is certainly one of the *Key*
ways to test for speed.

I wrote Tom's Hardware awhile back but never recieved a reply, nor ever seen at
his site this type of benchmark.

Let's face it, not many people really know or care that much about chess the way
we do.


If someone or many of us could persuade these guys to use chess in benchmarking,
that would be great, but I'm not holding my breath!:o)

Terry



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.