Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 11:45:30 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 13:31:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 31, 2003 at 02:49:03, Matt Taylor wrote: > >>On January 30, 2003 at 14:24:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 30, 2003 at 13:28:42, Christopher A. Morgan wrote: >>> >>>>Question re dual processor differences. >>>> >>>>Tiger Direct offers a dual AMD MP 2200+ for $1,650, and a dual Intel Xeon 2.4 >>>>for $3,000. Both without an operating system. >>>> >>>>What difference in performance would I expect between these two machines? The >>>>AMD dual at roughly ½ the price seems to be the much better buy, although the >>>>Xeon should have HT, I believe? >>>> >>>>For a Windows operating system which is better (I am a single user, no network >>>>use, no server use), Win XP Pro or Win 2000 Pro? >>>> >>>>Thanks! >>> >>> >>>there are plenty of people here that can give you a good performance comparison >>>between the two. From what I have seen, AMD generally has the performance edge >>>until you step into the dual market. Then you have to be very careful as several >>>AMD >>>tests posted here by others (not by me as I have no AMD boxes here at all) >>>suggest that >>>the AMD duals have a memory bottleneck that limits performance. However, it is >>>also likely that there are both good and bad chipsets for supporting duals. >>>Intel has >>>a "workstation" class dual xeon chipset and a "server" class chipset. The >>>server class >>>chipset has better memory performance. >>> >>>It it were _my_ money, I would benchmark the program(s) I want to run on the box >>>before making the decision. As I said, there are certainly bad AMD chipsets for >>>duals. There are _also_ bad Intel chipsets for duals. >>> >>>Common sense says "benchmark" or get data directly from someone that has the >>>_specific_ chipset you are looking at. >>> >>>All duals are not created equal. Hyper-threading is yet another issue. >>>Remember >>>that you have to run two threads to take full advantage of one physical CPU. On >>>AMD >>>this is not true. Hyper-threading speeds things up significantly. But that >>>second thread >>>also has a cost, particularly if you don't have a second thread to run. :) >> >>There are only 2 dual-CPU chipsets for Socket A. They are the AMD 760 and AMD >>760MPX. Both of my duals are based on the 760MPX. There may be performance >>difference; the only listed difference I could find was the memory footprint. >> >>I posted my numbers a while back. My AthlonMP 2000 system had something like 1.5 >>MN/sec. My AthlonMP 1600 had something like 1.1 MN/sec. IIRC, your dual Xeon 2.8 >>GHz was ~2.1 MN/sec, yes? Extrapolating to AthlonMP 2400, it would not quite >>match 2.1 MN/sec, though it would be close and -much- cheaper. >> >>Just like you, I believe the issue is a memory bottleneck. The SMP chipset >>squanders valuable bus cycles. Intel's chipsets use interleaving to give each >>processor "dedicated" bandwidth. >> >>-Matt > >the 2.1M depends on the test set, of course. And other things as well. I >really hate to >compare even Crafty NPS numbers across machines, unless it is done one very >specific >way: > >default settings on _everything_, except for the mt=N to enable extra cpus, and >using the >"bench" command. That makes sure everyone runs the same positions, with the >same size >hash, and it needs to be the _same_ version of Crafty as there is variance >between versions >for lots of reasons. > >I'll try to run the bench test. OK just did. > >2.134M nodes per second (2,134K nodes per second if you prefer K). That is run >using >the intel compiler in feedback optimizer mode, dual 2.8 xeon with mt=4 and >hyperthreading >on... > >Bob I also ran with default settings. Fired up Crafy, set mt=2, ran the bench test. I did run a different version, but that shouldn't make a huge difference in nps, should it? I ran Aaron Gordon's 18.11 optimized version on both machines. When I get some time, I would like to pour through Crafty code and work on optimizing it for Athlon. I have just not had that time lately... -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.