Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 02:00:05 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 02:57:11, Brandon wrote: >AMD chips are generally better (mhz per mhz) for chess than Intel chips. I use a >dual xeon 2.2 ghz for chess on ICC and I get some pretty crazy nps (I use chess >programs that use multiple cpus). Generally speaking, if the machine is going to >play chess only and is going to be a single cpu system, I'd stick with AMD.. >best bang for the buck in this case. However, if you are going to be doing video >editing or using "graphic intensive programs", Intel generally is better. If you >want to have a multiple cpu system (like a dual cpu system), I would stick with >Intel, as they have been in the multiple cpu business for many years while AMD >is pretty recent in this area (~1.5 years experience, at the most). I have heard >reports of inefficiencies and problems with dual amd configurations, so research >it out carefully. www.tomshardware.com is a good place to start... good luck. > > - Brandon S. > >P.S. - Programs like Crafty have been compiled by several different sources to >provide optimizations for the P4 and the AMD, so that muddies up the whole issue >of "which cpu is faster with chess progs" and what not.. Tom's Hardware posts a lot of crap. Half the articles are poor attempts to cover up lack of knowledge. When they do make an error, instead of fixing the problem, they try to explain to you why it's not an error. I own an AthlonMP system at home and have one on my desk at work. I haven't seen any inefficiencies; they do lack the quad-pumping stuff Intel does. So does the P3 Xeon. Overall quite happy with my system. It doesn't perform as well as high-end P4 Xeon systems, but it's hard to beat with a pricetag of $1,100 and comparable hardware minus SCSI. -Matt
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.