Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 00:26:13 01/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 21:29:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 15, 2003 at 19:04:36, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>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. > >That isn't true in my case. My quad xeon 700 was a PIII-based xeon >box. My dual 2.8 is almost exactly twice as fast, which is what the >clocks say should happen. Actually, figuring the speed up into it... 4 p3 chips have a speedup factor of 3.1x. 700 * 3.1 = 2170MHz and according to you (I remember the message well) you stated with the Intel C compiler your Quad got 1.6mn/s. Dual 2.8GHz w/ SMT should get a speedup of around 2.21 over 1 cpu w/o SMT. This is (1+(2-1)*0.7) * 1.30 (30% boost from SMT). Now, 2800 * 2.21 = 6188MHz. This isn't the "total MHz" of course, whats actually being used from Crafty. Anyway, as I said in the previous message every post I've seen you're showing numbers around 2mn/s for the dual 2.8... now.. P3's @ 2170MHz = 1.6mn/s P4's @ 6188MHz = 2.0mn/s If you don't add the SMT as MHz you still get.. 4760MHz, 2.0nb/s (2800*1.7) 119% more cycles for what, 25% increase in performance? Now, the clocks say what again? ;) >>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). ;) > >If you think about it, does it matter? 1 transfer 400M times a second, or >4 transfers 100M times a second? It is simply semantics, not practical speed. > >BTW my xeon box (2.8 x 2) is DDR ram, not rambus... I'm not a fan of rambus >at all except for certain kinds of streaming memory applications... It does to me, I like everything to be right. I run my (DDR) bus at 183MHz, if I said I was running a "366MHz fsb" I would be what? Wrong.
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.