Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 22:14:13 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 01:11:17, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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. :) AMD doesn't guarantee 2.3 GHz out of any of their chips. As I recall, you had a particularly bad one recently... Anyway, if AMD doesn't define the limit of stability, who does? Some P4s overclock to 4 GHz now, don't they? -Matt
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.