Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 13:45:44 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 11:48:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I have IDE RAID. It's not SCSI, but it's SCSI-like. No more bus hogging, and slow devices aren't as big of an issue. The IDE RAID cost me an extra $300 for the controller and a pair of disks. >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... Yes, which is why it's nice that my IDE RAID controller functions as a SCSI device. :-) -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.