Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:02:33 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 14:45:30, Matt Taylor wrote: >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 Suggestions are _always_ welcome. :)
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.