Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: How Good is the Pentium 4 2.2 Gig Processor for Chess?

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 08:48:42 12/19/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 19, 2002 at 05:00:05, Matt Taylor wrote:

>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


My only comment is that I will _never_ own another IDE-based system.  too slow.
Hogs the bus.  Devices are slow.

My 2.8 is using ultra-320 scsi with 15K drives and it can eat EGTBs like a
gorilla eats bananas...

SCSI is also a nice way to offload queueing issues as well.  Let the
controller decide which read/write to do next...  Since an operating system
really can't uderstand variable device geometry anyway...



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.