Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 20:11:02 11/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2002 at 20:05:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 27, 2002 at 16:57:52, Wayne Lowrance wrote: > >>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 > > >That has nothing to do with what I said. AMD implemented a single-channel >memory controllor. Intel is now using dual-channel... And their memory >bandwidth is steadily going up while AMD is stuck with the design they chose >for the moment... > >Whether their CPU is more efficient or not is one issue. But clearly their >duals are significantly worse than Intel's duals... more so than their single >cpu speed advantage can cover for... Nforce2 is dual-channel DDR board for Tbird/AthlonXP's/AthlonMP's (single cpu). Also as I've said in the past (and proven, look for the messages I've posted if you don't remember for some reason) the dual AMD systems running with a 1.7x speedup can beat any of the P4's even with the P4's having a 1.9x speedup. Also, I don't doubt you're a talented programmer, teacher, etc. However. If you're going to test something please make sure to test it properly. I'm not trying to be 'mean' or anything like that. I am a perfectionist though and it really bugs me when I see something done improperly. Dual AMD systems with Crafty can get a 1.66-1.70x speedup, not the 1.4x you're always posting. If you're going to test something why not do it right? Thats all I'm asking. If you're a teacher in a university you should be able to ask around and run one of the binaries I compiled on a dual AMD system one of the students own. If you want to compile it yourself I can give you the compiler options I used and profiling methods. Now, Slate and I have already done that but if for some reason you need to see the numbers produced directly infront of you then what I stated above is a completely viable option.
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.