Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:55:47 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 16:45:44, Matt Taylor wrote: >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 Now show me your 320mbyte/sec bursts and 15K rpm (2ms latency) rotational speeds.. :)
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.