Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 22:11:17 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 01:06:24, Matt Taylor wrote: >On February 19, 2003 at 00:52:09, enrico carrisco wrote: > >>On February 19, 2003 at 00:19:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 19, 2003 at 00:11:08, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>> >>>>I just downloaded Crafty 16.19 and ran a bench for you guys. No single cpu Intel >>>>box could ever touch this without sub-zero cooling. Just plain not going to >>>>happen. >>>> >>>>Crafty v16.19 >>>> >>>>White(1): bench >>>>Running benchmark. . . >>>>...... >>>>Total nodes: 67136136 >>>>Raw nodes per second: 1766740 >>>>Total elapsed time: 38 >>>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 16.842105 >>> >>> >>>This is not a great test since that is a very old version. I'm not sure how >>>1.7M compares to version 19.3 in nps... >>> >>>However, while on the question, what is an XP 2.44ghz machine, since I am not >>>an AMD expert. Overclocked? If so, I consider that a worthless number, because >>>of obvious reasons... >> >> >>If done properly and tested for reliability -- what reasons do you speak of? >>Most CPUs are purposely locked from higher than marked performance from the >>manufacturer for marketing and other reasons -- both Intel and AMD. This, in no >>way, means the CPU is incapable of such performance. > >Propigation delays do. Intel and AMD release chips at a given speed for a >reason. Yes, much of it is about money. It is very profittable to allow >consumers to upgrade through every iteration of a chip. Not always. Intel >delayed the 1.13 GHz Pentium 3 for a while. I've heard that they could not mass >produce them reliably at the time. > >>In the case of AMD, chips with the same stepping are identical no matter what >>they're marked. So if a 1500+ AthlonXP has an AIUHB 0301 core and an AthlonXP >>2800+ has an AIUHB 0301 then they'll be able to run identical speeds. >>(Obviously there are slight variations in peak performance, if you're going for >>higher than XP3000+ level.) >> >>Are you suggesting that "unlocking" performance that is already included in the >>core simply because the marking on the top of the cpu says otherwise makes such >>results worthless? > >No, he is suggesting that comparing unguaranteed performance is worthless and >silly. You might stick a peltier on your chip, tweak the voltage, and manage to >run 2.8 GHz or something similarly fast. That doesn't mean I can. That doesn't >mean anyone else can. > >>Wouldn't that be the same as saying stronger results I may find with Crafty if I >>modified the settings are completely worthless if you did not include the >>settings in your official release? > >Modifying Crafty compile settings doesn't cause it to crash all of a sudden. >Furthermore, anyone can apply those same settings and get the same results. > >-Matt Thats what he was saying about the chip. Anyone can slap an air-cooler on an AIUHB chip and get at least 2.3ghz (up to 2.6ghz). If you can compile crafty, you can surely push a few keys to raise your bus and voltage. Even my fiance overclocks her computer (and did it by herself). I'm not magical, you can get the same hardware and run the same settings I do. :)
This page took 0.01 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.