Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:34:16 10/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2002 at 15:05:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I saved this great statement to harddisk :) > >> :) 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. It is known that intel tried to produce a few quads for experimental reasons, but i do not know a single quad P4 which i can buy in a shop. Even if it is a 'slow' 1.6ghz quad :) Also i would be pretty amazed if a quad P4 runs stable for more than 5 minutes after booting, not to mention what happens if you write down 'mt 4' in crafty :) Best regards, Vincent > > > >> >>>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.