Author: Chris Carson
Date: 16:52:01 06/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2002 at 19:02:45, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >So a common misconception seems to be that 64-bit chips would be twice as fast >as 32-bit chips. This is almost exactly like saying you can add small numbers >together twice as fast on an 11-digit calculator than on a 10-digit calculator. >(Computers spend most of their time working with < 32 bit numbers.) It doesn't >make any difference. The main advantage of 64-bit chips is that you can easily >address more memory and bigger files with them, and I've never heard of a 32-bit >chess program that was starved for memory. > >It makes sense that a bitboard chess program would benefit from the 64-bitiness >of a processor but I've never seen any evidence to support this. According to >SPEC, the Itanium doesn't run Crafty any faster than 32-bit programs, when >compared to a Pentium. (In fact, it runs Crafty a little slower.) Hyatt likes to >say that 64-bit chips are great for computer chess because the Alpha runs Crafty >really fast, but looking at SPEC, the Alpha runs everything fast. It only runs >Crafty a few percent faster than 32-bit programs. > >A chip's design is MUCH more important than how wide its ALU is. Otherwise, a >386 would be more or less as fast as a Pentium 4 because they're both 32-bit >chips. Just because a chip is 64-bit doesn't mean it's fast. The Itanium is a >dog. So is the UltraSparc III. > >In other words, nobody should get fired up about 64-bit. > >BTW, 64-bit chips are very common. The Nintendo 64 had a MIPS R4000, which is >64-bit. Every RISC workstation for the past few years has been 64-bit, including >HP-PA, UltraSparc, POWER3/4, Alpha. > >The Itanium 1 is a dog. Everybody says the Itanium 2 will be fast, but according >to what Intel itself has disclosed about performance, it's not going to be >faster than a fast Pentium. Plus, it'll be really expensive. Personally, I think >the Itanium's design is stupid and am waiting for it to disappear. > >The AMD Hammer (successor to the Athlon) will rock. It's 64-bit, it has a deeper >pipeline, a better branch predictor, more registers (!), an on-die memory >controller, and more. Prerelease 800MHz Hammers are almost as fast as 1.6GHz >Athlons at Quake 3, and production Hammers should clock faster than Athlons. I >think the Hammer will be the best chip for computer chess for a long time to >come. > >-Tom
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.