Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 19:50:36 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 be true, but it has nothing to do with the calculations I have done.
I have not compared clocks/instruction of 8088 and 68000, just Pentium Pro and
68000.
Do you have somewhere the information about the average number of clocks per
instruction on the 68000? That would be very useful for me. I'm almost certain
that for the Pentium Pro it's 0.9 clocks/instruction (or 1.1 instruction/clock),
but I'm not sure about the 68000.
I'm not even sure if the DragonBall has the same clocks/instruction average.
> 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).
The ratio of the TigerMark between the PP200 and the DragonBall is in my opinion
more reliable.
Christophe
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.