Author: Slater Wold
Date: 01:27:51 05/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2002 at 21:46:36, David Dory wrote: > >Thanks Slater - quite a * feat *, indeed! I know you must have put in your whole >holiday weekend on this project. Not to mention the cost$ (no, let's not mention >that :-) ), and sleep deprivation. I did this test for me, and only me. I expected flames, which is fine. (Although I didn't know Aaron would be so harsh, but oh well.) It's like the Chevy vs Ford war. No one wins. Ever. >Thanks Aaron - great input/feedback and counterpoint, and hospitality offered. Sorry I was unable to make it to your house Aaron, but it's not like you live across the street. This was a holiday weekend, and just explaining to the GF that I was building a new computer didn't go over well. Imagine if I told her I was going to Austin! >Vincent, Dan, and so many others - also great discussion. I was very suprised to see how Vincent reacted/responded to this test. I imagined he was going to be the hostile one. (And instead, it was Aaron!) He was very tactful, and very kind. I appreciate that greatly. >The P4's superior performance in multimedia I expected. It's fine performance >with Crafty was a pleasant surprise. The MP3's, MPEG, and other multimedia tests I ran, I was not at all suprised to see the P4 win with ease. Getting 1.0M+ nps in some positions with a single CPU came as a BIG shock to me. (Without being overclocked.) Overall, I have to say, that P4 does very well. >Although P4 and Athlon CPU's will certainly change or be replaced down the road, >I'm sure many members of CCC will remember the work and time that went into this >test for quite a while. LOL - I doubt it. Seemed everyone was disappointed because I didn't do this, or that, or the other thing. All I have to say is this: Chessbase products only come one way. And look who won in those tests. That should put ANY questions you may have of who is faster, to rest. >Not to mention the intersting benchmarks (no, no need to mention them :-) ). ;) >I recall when PCMag used to do bechmarking very easily - two part-time workers, >two benches, a bunch of cards and drivers. > >In a very short time they had an entire lab, full staff, more equipt. than you >could shake a stick at. The process took many times longer to complete, even >with all this support. Once you start it, considering all the possible >variables, (and any one of them could be very meaningful), it's a truly >convoluted can of worms. Well, whenever someone sees someone do a "test", there is always a catch. Not the right drivers, video card, memory, this, that. There is always something that makes the reader feel the "test" is null. I tried my hardest not to have that happen here, but just as I suspect, it was all in vein. Which I said before, is fine. I have sat behind these 2 computers now for over 48 hours. I know which is faster. No matter who says what. >Again, thanks Slater, and all. You're very welcome. But sorry, don't look to me to do this again. ;) Thanks for the kind words David. >Cue the music, Mr. Williams... > >David On a side note: I cannot afford to have a P4 and a 2xAMD 1.73Ghz. My plan was always to sell the P4, and maybe lose $100 or so. However, it's not looking like that's going to happen. I rarely use my computer for chess anymore, and I rarely use that 2nd CPU, except for chess. Therefore, this coming week I will probably sell my AMD, instead of the P4. And yes, I am that convinced.
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.