Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 13:57:52 11/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2002 at 11:06:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 26, 2002 at 08:28:26, Brian Richardson wrote: > >>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 > > >If you read the "underground analysis" it would seem that this is going to get >worse. The new AMDs are supposed to have a built-in memory controller on the >processor chip. Unfortunately, it is now known that it is an inferior >controller compared to late Intel offerings. The question is, how is AMD going >to respond? The answer is unknown, but if they don't, they will get their >clock cleaned (again). Again ? The heck you say ! Go to Tom's hardware. Also as for as I know a P4 is much inferior to AMD's performance clock vs clock. Thanks Wayne
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.