Author: Brian Richardson
Date: 14:37:29 11/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2002 at 16:29:39, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On November 25, 2002 at 16:00:56, Brian Richardson wrote: > >>On November 25, 2002 at 14:33:16, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>On November 25, 2002 at 10:19:13, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>On November 25, 2002 at 02:45:35, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 23:10:44, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 15:06:55, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 14:25:47, Joachim Rang wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 14:19:06, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 13:15:09, Bob Durrett wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On November 24, 2002 at 11:49:07, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q3/cpu2000-20020909-01635.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Didn't someone say RDRAM was bad for chess? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Bob D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>But is still faster than any single processor available with any other memory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Pichard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Athlon XP 2600+ is 17% faster: >>>>>>>>http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q3/cpu2000-20020812-01551.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Really, I must be blind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Pichard. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>And faster still is the Athlon XP 2800+: >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q4/cpu2000-20020923-01691.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You are still missing the point here: >>>>> >>>>>Did you check how many CPU(s)were enabled: = 1 for this test, I did NOT see >>>>>CPU(s) enabled: = 2 >>>>> >>>>>Pichard. >>>> >>>> >>>>Both of guys provide examples with 1 CPU enabled. When I do likewise, I'm >>>>somehow missing the point. Okey-dokey, I think I can live with that. >>> >>> >>>Sorry, I meant to say all of you missed the point, but at the same time when >>>only 1 CPU is enabled, the Intel can not compete with any Athlon XP 2600+ or >>>higher. Now if AMD release a Dual 2400 MP, it will beat the @#$+ out of Intel >>>higher Xeon. >>> >>>Pichard. >> >>Actually, just the opposite has been shown for 32bit AMD >>(e.g., slower than dual Xeon). >> >>Brian > >Probably for the Dual 2200+ but NOT for the upcoming Dual 2400+ MP > >http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1747&p=10 > >And > >http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1747&p=12 > > >Pichard. Multiprocessor performance is highly application dependent. In this case, AMD does much worse with chess applications (regardless of clock speed), than Intel. Thus, while the benchmarks cited above are meaningful, they only apply to the workloads being tested, which have little to do with computer chess.
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.