Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:08:51 02/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2003 at 23:56:53, Matt Taylor wrote: >On February 01, 2003 at 00:00:47, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>On January 31, 2003 at 22:54:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 31, 2003 at 21:18:04, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>> >>>>On January 31, 2003 at 20:09:51, Matt Taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 31, 2003 at 16:55:51, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 31, 2003 at 15:30:02, Lei , Shiann-Tzong wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 31, 2003 at 14:19:22, Vladik wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I bought AMD Athlon XP2400+ and on my pc shows 2.0 GHz is that right ? >>>>>>>>And do i need any configration in Bios or to leave it defoult settings ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>my hardware: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>AMD Athlon XP2400+ >>>>>>>>Asus A7S333 >>>>>>>>Samsung(333 mhz) 256 DDR >>>>>>>>Win XP Prof. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I tested Fritzmrk under Fritz 7 Gui with Fritz 7.0.0.8 with 32 mb hash and the >>>>>>>>kn/s is: 1100 kn/s per second. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I wonder that is everything okay or there is something wrong ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Thanks in advance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>>Vladik >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dual Xeon 2.0Ghz can get 4200 fritzmark . About 4000 Kn/s >>>>>> >>>>>>Something is wrong here, by what you say you should get over 2000 Kn/s on a >>>>>>single 2 Ghz Xeon?? that can't be right. >>>>>> >>>>>>(I assume you used DF7 for your fritzmark?) >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards >>>>>>Jonas >>>>> >>>>>Somebody else posted that a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 scored 950 Kn/s. Therefore a dual >>>>>2.4 GHz Xeon would score somewhere below 1900 Kn/s. The only explanation for an >>>>>aberration is that other assumptions were violated. This may be effects from a >>>>>larger cache, or it could be a different type of ram, different hash table size, >>>>>or any number of things. >>>>> >>>>>It would be useful if those sorts of variables were posted alongside the >>>>>benchmark data. Otherwise the only conclusion that can be drawn is that all 3 >>>>>systems are fast. >>>>> >>>>>-Matt >>>> >>>>No matter what RAM or cache it has a dual 2.0 Ghz xeon could not outperform a >>>>dual 2.4 Ghz with more than a 100%, atleast not the way i see it, Hyatt, Slater >>>>can you enlighten me? >>>> >>>>Regards >>>>Jonas >>> >>> >>>I can't help much. I have a dual 2.8 xeon that runs the crafty benchmark at >>>2.1M nodes per second under linux. I have no idea how fast fritz would run >>>on this box however... >> >>Deep Fritz 7 mark on my Dual AMD 1600+ is around 1400 Kn/s >>Crafty 19.02 does 1.284.735 nodes >> >>That would translate into this (roughly): >> >>On your machine according to my benchmarks, Deep Fritz 7 would do around 2500 >>Kn/s and you run with 2 x 2.8 Ghz, his friend only have a 2 x 2.0 Ghz... >> >>The point is that Lei is claiming that Deep Fritz mark on his friends dual 2.0 >>Ghz Xeon is a little under 4000 Kn/s i find it hard to believe that a single >>Xeon 2.0 Ghz would outperform My Dual AMD... >> >>Regards >>Jonas > >On second thought, it is probably an error -- he is probably comparing -4- Xeon >2.0 GHz CPUs to the dual AthlonMP. This is an advantage for Intel since there >are currently no 4-way or better SMP boards for Socket A. > >I may be wrong, but I -think- 4-way Intel also costs an arm & a leg. > >-Matt They actually are not that bad. The main problem is that Intel is trying to force everyone to use the 2M L2 cache versions, which are about four grand each. When I upgraded my 550 to 700, I could only buy 1M L2 chips, at 1300 bucks each. I personally think that is a scam...
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.