Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 23:28:19 11/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2002 at 17:37:29, Brian Richardson wrote: >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. Just wait until AMD release the Dual 2600+ MP, and install Deep Fritz on one of this baby and compare it against a Dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz. Pichard.
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.