Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 19:08:26 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2002 at 18:33:16, Bob Durrett wrote: >On December 31, 2002 at 18:19:53, Dan Andersson wrote: > >>First of all the AMD CPUs do not run at their PR speed. So comparing on >>clockspeed alone the AMD is faster. Secondly I was referring to the statement >>that the P4 is faster on all benchmarks. That is not true in the least. Not even >>for games. That is the general conclusion. Thirdly some chess programs will run >>faster on the P4. TSCP is one case. But it has a puny memory footprint and can >>run in cache. > >You know what they say: "Cache as cache can." : ) > >As mentioned before, it sure would be good if huge on-wafer caches were to >become available and affordable. Then all the engines and hash tables would >load into the cache. Maybe the term "latency" would become obsolete. Pentium 3 Xeon chips were available with up to 2 MB of L2 cache. The Opterons are available with 1 MB of L2 (L3?) cache. From what I read, Itanium currently has 3 MB and Intel is going to put out 6 MB versions of the next IA-64 generation. I doubt latency will ever become obsolete. Main memory grows much faster than cache sizes do. Entry-level in desktops is somewhere between 256 MB and 512 MB, and many machines come equipped with 1 GB of ram. A 2 MB cache is still small in comparison. Personally I think the solution is to bring back on-board cache memory, but I would prefer to see like at least 16 MB cache and preferably more like 64 MB cache. Even if it's expensive, it would be worth it for high-end machines. -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.