Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:38:17 10/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2002 at 09:31:22, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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. >> >> >>> :) 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. > >Who's going to pay $3000 x 4 just for a quad Itanium system? I'm going to bet >the Clawhammer will be faster and less than $400 per chip. Actually i would be interested in a quad I2 system (not in quad I1 which is very slow cpu). of course i lack the courage to also pay that much for such a system, knowing you'll never get back that money. Doesn't take away that the main problem is that you won't be able to buy it for $12k. I would consider it CHEAP for $12k if you see what you get back. bob sure will manage to get his hands on one if they just cost $12k for a quad McKinley. In theory that's somewhere against 6 million nodes a second for crafty :) Best regards, Vincent
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.