Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 15:01:03 06/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2002 at 17:52:47, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 04, 2002 at 16:28:39, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On June 04, 2002 at 16:18:55, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>Because you are using a processor that is clocked at twice the clock >>>frequency? Why compare a 1ghz processor to a (nearly) 2ghz processor >>>and conclude anything about efficiency there? Is there anything that >>>suggests that the alpha is simply more "efficient"? To justify that >>>clock frequency disparity? >>> >>>A machine twice as fast (clock freq) _should_ perform just as well as >>>a 64 bit machine at 1/2 the frequency... Less would suggest that the >>>32 bit machine simply sucks badly. >> >>I don't agree with the validity of a clock-for-clock comparison, >>but if you want to do it anyway, I'll again point to Vincent's >>numbers: >> >>At the same clockspeed, Crafty only gets 33% faster on the 64-bits >>machine. >> >>When you read this, keep in mind that most applications get _more_ >>than 33% faster on the 64-bits machine. > >All the new 64 bit chips in the discussion are pretty much beta stage right >now. Not true for the Alpha. >So, I think that architecturally, it makes good sense to design for a 64 bit >system right now. That makes sense, if the 64 bit design is actually faster than the corresponding 32 bit design (even on 64 bit hardware if you wish). The case for bitboards is not clear on that matter. Certainly, if the speedup over nonbitboards is only 33% they will have a hard time convincingly beating alternative appraoches even on 64 bit hardware. -- GCP
This page took 0.02 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.