Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 23:13:54 09/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2002 at 23:43:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >1. I didn't see anyone post _any_ 1.7x number for AMD when I asked for them >a week or two back. It was in a seperate post. Slate benched a number of the latest binaries I compiled with automatic parallelization. >2. I don't see how the binary is going to affect this at all. You should >get the same ratio of single to dual whether you use a fully-optimized binary >or one with no optimizing at all. Since the dual speed is relative to the >single cpu version, the base NPS is unimportant. Perhaps you should test this yourself if you can. Slate got 1.4x with your binary, 1.7x with mine. >No, actually I am using a quad intel machine. Where are the quad AMDs? Why >do you think there are none? Think about "scaling"... Clawhammers & Opterons will be out in a few months and there has already been pictures posted of dual/quad Hammers. Also if I recall correctly my single Athlon is faster than your Quad. :) My board + chip now days costs $154 together. I'm sure it would still cost over $500 to build that quad you have which is slower. :) The gap would be huge if you drop a 2600+ in here and even more so with a 2600+ at 2.5GHz. A quad may 'sound' nice but if all the cpus are slow then whats the point? >Except that I can buy a quad or 8-way P4 system, but not an AMD. And now >they get left in the dust... Not cheap of course.. But not even doable with >AMD. See above.
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.