Author: Charles Worthington
Date: 18:43:10 02/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 20:59:19, Charles Worthington wrote: >On February 19, 2003 at 20:58:20, Charles Worthington wrote: > >>Yes Matt many people here do exagerate their figures. If the Intel guy says >>Intel will produce a 20 GHz cpu next week then the AMD guy will tell you that he >>can still clock his 2600 to 20.1GHz....and vice versa. The truth is that they >>are both good processors. Is the AMD on par with the Xeon in quality or speed? >>No, it isn't. The 2.8 Xeon was tested alongside the AMD 2400MP and clearly >>out-scored it. The tests were performed by an independant company who had no >>reason to lie. Yes as far as speed goes they can both be clocked up. But people >>should try to bear in mind that the AMD and the Xeon are very different products >>designed for very different markets. The Zeon is primarily designed for >>workstation and server platforms where both speed ans stability are required. >>They are high end processors and are priced accordingly. The Athlon is designed >>more for use in PC's both single cpu (xp) and dual (Mp). It is a fast processor >>for the buck but was not designed to be overclocked to try to match a Xeon. If a >>2 GHz cpu was stable at 3 GHz then, trust me, AMD would market it as a 3 GHz. >>The bottom line is simple: If you want performance and stability and you can >>afford to pay for it buy the Xeon. If you want performance but are on a limited >>budget buy the AMD. But_don't_ go out and buy a Yugo and then come back here and >>tell me that you are building it to catch the neighbors Ferrari. If the >>neighbors Ferrari bothers you that much then buy one too. If you can't afford >>one then be happy with the yugo. It will still get you where you are going. >> To me trying to compare Intel and AMD is like comparing apples and oranges. >>You are comparing a low end home and light business processor against a high end >>heavy duty cpu designed specifically for Workstation and server platforms. That >>is like comparing a Yugo to a Ferrari. Charles P.S. The figures for Deep Fritz 7 that I have observed on the chessbase server are as follows: 2.2GHz P4 750kNs; 2.8GHz P4 1038 kNs; 3.06GHz P4 w/HT 1,297kNs. AMD 2400xp 1030 kNs; Dual AMD 2400mp 2280kNs; Dual AMD 2400xp 2166 kNs. I have played against or observed most every dual on that site. I did see one machine post 2400 kNs but that was only once and may have been during a spike. I am unsure of the type cpu which produced that figure. I have seen overclocking claims here so wild as to defy belief. I have seen claims of single cpu AMD's pulling 1,800 kNs with Deep Fritz 7 (without any way of hyperthreading). They need to put that in a dual then come to the chessbase server and let us all see the 3300 kNs post. Of course they won't do this because they cant make that post. It is easy to post figures on here where no one can prove or disprove them but it's not so easy to prove it over the board on the chessbase server. The figures i have posted above were with 64 MB Hash tables in 3+2 time controls. And yes, some of those AMD dual machines are overclocked the owners have told me so themselves. The above figures are how it is in the real world. They are unbiased and accurate. And i challenge any AMD here overclocked or not to show all of us on the fritz server than he can exceed 2600 kNs with Deep Fritz 7. Forget posting the benchmarks here...let the chessbase server do that. And be sure to use the Deep Fritz 7 GUI and send evaluations. The kNs will be posted at the end of every game.
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.