Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:40:30 11/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2002 at 20:41:28, Yen Art Tham wrote: >On November 29, 2002 at 22:56:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 29, 2002 at 17:27:30, David Rasmussen wrote: >> >>>On November 29, 2002 at 11:20:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>You might have a better chipset or motherboard. I don't know. I do know that >>>>everyone that has tested (perhaps except yourself) dual AMDs have reported >>>>disappointing results, which makes me believe there is a memory bottleneck. >>>> >>> >>>This is simply not true, if you're talking in general. >> >> >>If you have read what I have written on this subject, it has _always_ been >>in the context of running Crafty. Nothing more. nothing less. And running >>crafty, AMD has problems in their dual configurations. Eugene and others have >>posted numbers showing this clearly... > > >Could this be the other way around (ie crafty has problems running on dual AMD) >Others have posted here that DF7 gets 1.8x on dual AMD. > And some have reported no speedup for DF as well, but I don't worry since I don't have anything to do with that program. But as far as "does crafty have trouble with AMD?" or "does AMD have trouble with Crafty?" the two questions are identical... > >> >> >> >>> The general word on >>>usenet about dual P4s vs. dual Athlons is that besides being cheaper, they're >>>also better. Many people who use it "seriously" as in heavy 3D work, rendering, >>>photoshop etc. report in favor of AMD. P4's might be better for Crafty, I don't >>>know. It would only be natural, since you have tested and developed it >>>extensively on P4s and not on Athlons. But P4s are certainly not better in >>>general. >>> >>>/David
This page took 0 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.