Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 16:04:36 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 18:14:50, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On January 15, 2003 at 17:43:47, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>On January 15, 2003 at 15:21:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2003 at 12:56:07, pavel wrote: >>> >>>>Robert, >>>> I must have missed this in your earlier discussion, but how much >>>>speedup are you getting on this Xeon? Did you replace your older ones with the >>>>new ones already? >>>> >>>>Cheers, >>>>pavs >>> >>> >>>I simply replaced my quad 700 with a dual 2.8. It is somewhere around 2x >>>faster, >>>overall... >> >> >Therefore, the 8x 1000 Mhz used vs Kramnik is roughly almost the same speed as >the newer dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz. > >PS: I'm NOT comparing these two systems Mhz Per Mhz since 8x1000 = 8000 Ghz, >whereas 2 x 2.8 = 5.6 Ghz, but the performance difference should be roughly >equal using the Newer Dual Xeon 2.8/533. > >Pichard I highly doubt that. You seem to be forgetting that the P3's are faster MHz for MHz than the Pentium 4 chips. It roughly takes a P4-1.6GHz to equal one P3-1GHz. Also, about the "400/533mhz" bus business, it's not actually 400mhz or 533mhz. It's just quad pumped (four data transfers per cycle). Thus a "400MHz" p4 bus is actually 100MHz and a "533" is 133. Same goes for DDR (double pumped, two transfers per cycle). I prefer DDR over RDRAM. DDR is much more efficient (actually does what it's rated for). The PC1066 RDRAM only pulls around 3.2gb/s actual but 240MHz(480) DDR hits 3.7gb/s easily (on an Nforce2 board). ;)
This page took 0.01 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.