Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:11:23 09/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2002 at 12:28:16, Aaron Gordon wrote: >On September 26, 2002 at 11:16:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> 93.5 seconds base run time >> >>Yes... But the Intel duals are blowing the AMD duals out of the >>water, totally.. >> >>AMD appears to win the "single cpu war" at the moment. But on the >>duals (and beyond) they are _way_ behind intel's performance. > > >Where exactly are you seeing the dual AMD's being "_way_" behind Intel's >dual P4 systems? Slates dual XP 1.73(2100+) gets 1.69 million nodes/sec in >Crafty v18.11. A single 2.5GHz AthlonXP gets almost 1.6 million nodes/second. >With the 2800+ being announced on October 1st and the Iwill MPX2 as cheap as it >is someone could make a dual AthlonXP 2800+ box quite easily provided they take >the 5 minutes to unlock the cpus. > >Show me some numbers Hyatt. :) Several have posted dual AMD numbers. The relevant detail is this: run crafty with one cpu on an AMD box and record the NPS. Then run it using two cpus and record the NPS. On an AMD box, the dual cpu speed will be around 1.4X faster than the single cpu speed. on an Intel box, this ratio is 1.9X. Which is a _significant_ difference. IE with Crafty, a dual intel gets 1.9x as much computing power (I am not talking parallel search speedup here, only raw NPS numbers to compare computer horsepower) while a dual AMD gets 1.4X... Eugene posted several such numbers here. Vincent reported 1.4X on his dual AMD. At mhz for mhz, AMD is generally faster, using one cpu. But when you factor in that 1.4X vs 1.9X for duals, the Intel processor catches up in a big hurry when using more than one cpu... Wasn't my results that were posted, I just noticed them. Others replied to that thread as well and AMD was always behind...
This page took 0.01 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.