Author: David Dory
Date: 16:46:45 07/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2002 at 15:39:18, Gordon Rattray wrote: >Thanks Jon and David, and anyone else who has replied in the meantime... > >I accept the point about the dual system. However, what about some of the top >programs that can't take advantage of two processors, e.g. Fritz 7, Tiger. Is a >single P4 2.53Ghz system best for these in terms of performance? > >David, you mentioned "in my tests", what clock speeds were you comparing? I >wouldn't be planning on over-clocking. > >Regarding the 64-bit chips, do we hope to see a significant gain? And I guess >we'll need new versions of our favorite chess programs to take advantage of the >new architecture?! > >thanks > >Gordon > > >On July 01, 2002 at 09:46:40, Jon Dart wrote: > >>On July 01, 2002 at 06:44:51, Gordon Rattray wrote: >> >>>What's currently the best available hardware for running chess programs? I'm >>>assuming a system that's buyable from, say, Dell. >>> >>>Is a top P4/RAMBUS based system now better than the best Athlon systems? If so, >>>is it a significant difference? >>> >>>So, what's the recommended buying strategy for the near future? For maximum >>>power, forgetting price? Alternatively, best value for money? >>> >> >>If you really want top performance, you probably need to look at dual-processor >>systems. These are usually sold as servers or high-end engineering workstations. >>Dell does sell them, but you won't find them in their consumer catalogs. Also >>you can get these cheaper elsewhere, e.g. look at http://www.aslab.com. >> >>It is not immediately clear which is better for chess. AMD generally beats Intel >>at the same clock speed, but the Xeons have a 512MB cache, which is significant, >>and Intel is pushing the clock speed up past what AMD can do. >> >>As usual, if you wait a few months, you can buy today's hardware cheaper. And >>yes, better CPUs are coming, including AMD's 64-bit chip, which looks pretty >>attractive, although it may be expensive at first. >> >>--Jon If the program you want to run is SMP compatible (Syn. Multiple Proc.), and you want and are willing to pay for extra performance, then sure, go for the dual. Myself, I wouldn't need that kind of performance. A fast single CPU is OK for me. (I'm a little bit of a power nut, but not in Aaron's class :-)) What I was referring to (and what I run), is a non-overclocked AMD Athlon 1900 at 1.6Ghz. In my own little test, it out performs all Pentium 4's up to 2.0 Ghz, handily. An Athlon 1.4Ghz also beats the P4 at 2.0Ghz, by a slight margin. I haven't tested Xeon's or the very latest P4's with the faster FSB/memory bandwidth. I would be surprised if they outperform an Athlon 1900, on a good board, even without overclocking of any kind. I understand the first 64 bit CPU's will be modest in cycle speed, not as fast as 2 or 3 Ghz. I'd pass on them. When they ramp the 64 bitters up to about 3Ghz, that's when you'll see me looking carefully through my piggy bank! I'm guessing that a 64 bit CPU will run a re-compiled chess program about 3 times faster than a 32 bit CPU of equal speed. This is just based on my experiece with several programs when the CPU changed from 8 to 16 bit, and from 16 to 32 bit. As you know, a good CPU does not a good motherboard make - all the chipsets have to be working well to eliminate the bottlenecks as much as possible. We'll have to see how this all works out, however, it would be a HUGE marketing problem for Intel and AMD if their flagship CPU's were only able to equal the work done by current 32 bit CPU's!! They've dumped a boatload of cash into making those puppies, so they HAVE to run like a ra*ed ape. Jon wrote: >>It is not immediately clear which is better for chess. AMD generally beats Intel >>at the same clock speed, but the Xeons have a 512MB cache, which is significant, >>and Intel is pushing the clock speed up past what AMD can do. >> >>As usual, if you wait a few months, you can buy today's hardware cheaper. And >>yes, better CPUs are coming, including AMD's 64-bit chip, which looks pretty >>attractive, although it may be expensive at first. I can say this very clearly: in my own tests, AMD beats the P3 and P4 very readily in my chesstest program, even on slower speeds, lower bandwidth, etc., it's just no contest. That's before any overclocking! You can be sure the 64 bit CPU's will cost an arm and a leg. But my advice is to hold out until they get their speed up around 3 Ghz. David
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.