Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 07:39:43 08/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 2002 at 13:17:48, Matthew Hull wrote:
>On August 06, 2002 at 12:30:15, Mike S. wrote:
>
>>On August 06, 2002 at 10:08:00, Rex wrote:
>>
>>>Do you receive better performance upgrading from a PC133Mhz bus speed to 333Mhz
>>>FSB -V- keeping the PC133 FSB and upgrading CPU 300 or so Mhz?
>>>
>>>Better performance meaning Chess Programs.
>>
>>I did some Fritzmark tests with different FSB clock rates and/or* memory clock
>>rates, with an Athlon XP. The impact of memory clock speed has been max. 6%.
>>I've read from others, the impact of FSB speed & -settings can be up to (but not
>>more) than 10%, for chess performance.
>>
>>*) I can choose mem clock asynchronous to FSB speed, i.e. FSB 133, mem 166.
>>
>>Also, I have noticed that DDR266 (133 MHz) with *small* latency settings
>>provides better Fritzmarks than DDR333 (166 MHz) with *high* (longer) latency
>>settings. 166 MHz and small latencies were not running stable, unfortunately.
>>
>>The CPU clock speed has *much* more impact on the chess performance. The speed
>>increase is virtually identical to the clock rate ratio (with *very small*
>>differences, depending on the program, position, hash size etc.).
>>
>>Regards,
>>M.Scheidl
>
>
>I would suspect that a nice backside cache minimizes slow memory performance
>hits. But if you did the same test with a Duron (small backside cache), then
>the differences in memory speed might become more apparent.
>
>Regards,
>Matt
When I told the young woman at the computer store that I was looking for
something with a "nice backside cache," she slapped my face before I could get
the third word ("cache") out. :-(
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.