Author: Brian Richardson
Date: 05:28:26 11/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2002 at 02:28:19, Jorge Pichard wrote: >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. I will always bow to the data, but based on results so far, dual AMDs have a scalability efficiency of about only 1.4x (where 2x would be ideal). Dual Intels are at about 1.8-1.9x, at least for good SMP code (like Crafty's). This more than makes up for individual AMD CPUs being somewhat faster than Intel. I would expect any 32bit AMD to be about the same, due to memory bottlenecks. This is not an issue for more general workloads. The 32-64x Hammers should do much better. Brian
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.