Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:05:48 09/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2002 at 02:13:54, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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. I wouldn't argue that point. My quad 700 is getting around 1.6M nodes per second using the intel compiler. However, a quad itanium-2 shows a lot more promise, if raw speed is the issue. I'm more interested in a slower quad than a faster dual, because the 4 processor machine is more difficult to use efficiently, and that is what the parallel search is all about. > :) 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? There are some fast quads out. I've seen linux output from a quad 2.2 intel machine (xeon-based). There are plenty of 1.5-1.6ghz quads around, but the processors are not compatible with my older MB. > >>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.