Author: fca
Date: 07:44:40 08/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 1998 at 06:59:14, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On August 12, 1998 at 04:48:56, fca wrote: > >>I tend to agree with Bob - as you recall, the parentage of this discussion was >>my surprise that such a huge speed ratio for Junior existed between the P200MMX >>and P2/300, which others later attributed to L2-cache size/MHz. I disagreed. > >I didn't say L2 cache is the only reason it's faster. Agreed. >The P6 core is maybe 35-75% faster than the P5 core. I assume you knew this. A safe assumption :-) > I was just pointing out >that with the faster core and the faster L2 cache speed, the performance >difference you see is explainable. You wrote: "Aside from software differences, the Pentium MMX/200 has a 66MHz L2 cache (possibly smaller than 512k) whereas the Pentium II/300 has a 512k 150MHz L2 cache. If a program really bangs on the L2 cache, it will go much faster on the Pentium II." But since the core (P2/300 vs P200MMX) is so much faster, the extra/faster cache (even if accessed a lot) simply serves to alleviate what the faster core would *otherwise* have made into a bottleneck. L2-hit rates etc suggest in itself this would not be able to increase the speed ratio above that the cores deliver. So, I am still surprised at the 2.5x reported. Aren't you? Also, I am not sure why the F5'd Junior engine should run **20%** slower than in native, on identical hardware. What am I missing here? Kind regards fca
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.