Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:07:49 05/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2002 at 13:27:21, Roy Eassa wrote: >On May 27, 2002 at 13:11:42, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On May 27, 2002 at 03:43:10, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >> >>>On May 27, 2002 at 01:26:53, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On May 27, 2002 at 00:30:24, Frank Schneider wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 26, 2002 at 18:49:23, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>So far CT 14.9 is showing a SSDF rating less than 2125. >>>>> >>>>>IMHO computer vs. computer matches exaggerate the difference, I think >>>>>Comet and Tiger were closer if both were matched against humans. >>>>> >>>>>However, the match shows that even a very good engine can't easily >>>>>compensate a factor 10-20 hardware disadvantage. >>>>> >>>>>Frank >>>> >>>>The hardware advantage of Comet is a lot more than being 10-20 times faster. >>> >>>That's probably correct. >>>I have heard that the difference from a Palm to a 486/50 is about a factot of 6. >>>Accounting for another factor of 8 or so, you 'll get the P200. >>>So, I'd guess Comet's advantage is roughly a factor of 50 in this match. >>>Quite a a lot. >>> >>>Correct, Chris ? >> >> >>Let's compute it another way. >> >>The Pentium Pro executes roughly one instruction per cycle (actually I think >>it's 1.1 instruction/cycle in average). That makes 200M instruction/second. >> >>The DragonBall needs IIRC 14 clock cycles per instruction (average). Maybe >>somebody can confirm or infirm this (the DragonBall is a 68000). >> >>So 48M/14=3.429M instruction/second. >> >>So the PP200 @200MHz seems to be approximately 200/3.429 = 58 times faster than >>the DragonBall @48MHz. >> >>But it does not look right because on my Palm (m505 @54MHz) I get a TigerMark of >>1.3 and on a K6-2 450MHz I get 225. So the TigerMark on PP200 should be close to >>100 (which is actually how the TigerMark has been calibrated: PP200=100), and so >>by this method PP200 is 77 times faster than DragonBall @54MHz, so PP200 is 87 >>times faster than DragonBall @48MHz. >> >>Let's say it's between 58 and 87 times faster. My best guess: Comet's hardware >>is 72 times faster than Tiger's. >> > > >I hate to throw in another factor, but having programmed in 8088 and 68000 >assembly language, I think that many higher-level operations require fewer >instructions on the 68000 than do equivalent operations on the 8088. This might >mitigate the factor a bit (i.e., instead of 58-87, maybe it's more like 2/3 of >that, or 39-58, which would then include the factor of 50 previously estimated). I think that you forget that Comet can use bigger hash tables than palm tiger. Doubling the hash tables means 6-7% speed improvement. Uri
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.