Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 12:08:36 10/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2002 at 16:16:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: No shop sells quad p4's bob. I don't know where you have the guts to simply put lies here. Note that there doesn't exist a publicly released chipset even which supports it. All there is, is failed experimental stuff. as you indicate all your machines are quad P3s. You probably don't even know what a P4 looks like :) >On October 01, 2002 at 09:34:16, Vincent Diepeveen 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. >> >>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 :) > > >I found several. I just had a quad 1.6 machine shipped to me by mistake and >sent it >on to the right end user. I have _seen_ actual output from a quad 2.2 but I >have not >seen the machine advertised. > > >> >>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 :) > >Why? Every quad intel box I have owned has run perfectly, reliably, and >for extended periods of time. I have 9 quad 550 xeon boxes, my quad 700 >xeon box, a quad 400 xeon box, and all were reliable from day 1. I also have >an old quad p6-200 that _still_ runs perfectly. > > > > > >> >>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 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.