Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 13:43:58 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2003 at 16:41:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 18, 2003 at 15:57:03, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On February 18, 2003 at 15:35:37, Charles Worthington wrote: >> >>>On February 18, 2003 at 15:27:55, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>> >>>>On February 18, 2003 at 14:44:10, Charles Worthington wrote: >>>> >>>>>Actually the 3175 kNs was derived at from a mathmatical formula: 1200 kNs for >>>>>single 3.06 cpu times 1.85 (For Duals) then that figure times 1.33 for >>>>>hyperthreading. Until I have the system in hand to test it the math is all i >>>>>have to go by. Why hasnt anyone tested the dual 2.8 Xeons by now? They have >>>>>certainly been on the market long enough that someone here would have tested >>>>>them other than Bob. >>>> >>>>Unfortunately Bob dont like to install Fritz 7 or Fritz 8. I assume he only >>>>would have to send chessbase a mail and they would ship him all products for >>>>free. >>>>He is probably Winboard-Crafty Fan :) >>>>CC enthusiasts in Germany generally prefer Dual AMD systems. So do I >>> >>>I can't say which system I prefer yet. I will soon have both in hand then I will >>>conduct unbiased tests. The germans prefer AMD because they don't run the new >>>Xeons. The price in Germany is a major factor. Price-wise I prefer the AMD as >>>well but i was not looking for the best value i was looking for the best >>>performance with cost not an object. >> >> >>Talk about money being no object... >> >>Does anyone know what Crafty performance is like on the latest s390 hardware >>under Linux? >> >>If I knew anyone at IBM, I'd quiz them as to how well Linux scales to a 16-way >>Z900 or (8-way for that matter) running on the bare metal (as opposed to running >>under VM). And if it does scale, then compile crafty on that and at least find >>out the n-way speedup factor for more than 4 processors. >> >>Matt > > >That's not a particularly good architecture for chess. I've run on several in >the past, but >they were pretty much dogs for chess. Lots of I/O throughput, but not good >number- >crunching platforms at all.. What about memory? Do you know how they handle shared memory across n processors? Even though the machines might be slow, would a test of n-way > 4 be interesting? Thanks, Matt > > > > >> >> >>>All I am saying is that the AMD users have >>>not actually owned a newer Xeon system so when they quote performance specs they >>>have no idea what they are talking about. My Xeon system i ordered from Dell is >>>the very first one ordered in the 3.06 platform with the new E7505 Chipset. No >>>one can claim to know that the AMD is faster than this box until we see for sure >>>by testing them. What will they say if the Xeon turns out to be significantly >>>faster?
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.