Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:33:53 12/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2002 at 11:25:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 17, 2002 at 10:58:51, Bob Durrett wrote: > > >Indeed you are correctly seeing that DIEP, which runs well on >cc-NUMA machines as well, is a very good program from intels >perspective, because even a 'second' processor on each physical >processor which runs slower will still give it a speedboost, >where others simply slow down a lot when you do such toying. > >So where many programs which will be way slower when running at >4 processes/threads at a 2 processor Xeon, the software is the >weak chain. What program fits this description? Not mine... > >In case of DIEP the bottleneck is the hardware clearly. Even >something working great on cc-NUMA doesn't profit too much from >the SMT/HT junk from intel. > >Though it is a great sales argument, the hard facts (11.4% >speedboost) are not lying. > >So they need to press 2 cpu's which results in a cpu price >2 times higher *at least* than an AMD cpu, the result >is that you win 11.4% in speed. What are you talking about? SMT doesn't "press 2 cpus". > >Though i am not a hardware engineer, i can imagine the problems >they had getting this to work. > >Instead of a P4-Xeon cpu clocked at 2.8Ghz which can split itself >into 2 physical processors, i would have preferred a P3-Xeon cpu >which splitted itself into 2 real processors (so each having its >own L1 and L2 caches) clocked at 2.0Ghz. > >That would have kicked anything of course from speed viewpoint as >it scales 1 : 1.2 to a K7 (k7 20% faster for each Ghz than the P3). > >Now we end up with a very expensive cpu which is 1 : 1.4 and a bad >working form of HT/SMT. > >So it's not DIEP having a problem here. But the hardware very clearly. >Intel optimistically claims 20% speed boost here and there. Others >claim 11% for database applications. > >I see 11.4% for DIEP. So that's a market conform viewpoint. > >The not so amazing thing of this all is that a 2.8Ghz Xeon being not >deliverable yet here is very expensive (even a 3.06Ghz P4 is already 885 >euro in the shops here also not yet deliverable) and the MP2200 which >DOES get offered for sales here is 290 euro. the fastest Xeon i see >getting offered socket 603 is a 2.0Ghz Xeon for 829 euro at alternate.nl > >a dual motherboard for the P4 i see here is several: > 789 euro for a dual xeon motherboard called: 860d pro (msi) > 549 euro for a tyan S2720GN is by far the cheapest i see > >then you gotta buy ecc registered DDR ram for it. > >a dual motherboard for K7 i see at the same alternate.nl is: > 259 euro for A7M266-D/U > 299 euro chaintech 7KDD (dual; U-DMA/133 RAID en sound) AMD-762MPX > 289 euro tiger MPX S2466N-4M > >The last mainboard (tiger) for sure needs registered DDR ram. but lucky >not ECC ram. > >the P4 dual motherboards need for sure ecc registered stuff. > >The only good news is that ddr ram ecc registered is a lightyear cheaper >than ecc registered RDRAM. > >RDRAM RIMM 256 MB (ValueRAM, ECC) voor PC PC1066 EUR 239,00 >now you can't need 256MB at all. You need more RAM than that. which is >exponential more expensive i fear. > >You get better served with DDR ram though: > kingston 1GB DIMM 1 GB (Registered) for PC PC266 EUR 599,00 > >It is amazing how many professors and others still throw away money >to get that dual 2.8Ghz P4 which is over 2 times more expensive than >AMD dual at the moment is. > > > > >>On December 17, 2002 at 10:10:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>Hello, >> >><snip> >> >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Vincent >> >>Vincent: >> >>Please help me to understand this. I had the impression that a software >>package's design makes a huge difference in how well that software will utilize >>a given hardware package. In the past, you talked about the advantage of >>portability. The "ideal" chess engine would run optimally on "anything." >> >>It seems to me that evaluation of the suitability, of a particular hardware >>configuration, for chess purposes must be measured using several or many >>different chess software packages. >> >>How do you know, for sure, that your program will run properly on the hardware >>you're discussing? How do you separate out the evaluation of the hardware from >>the software? Doesn't performance depend on both? If you get poor performance, >>how do you isolate the problem to the hardware? >> >>Bob D.
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.