Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 21:04:43 02/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 21:43:10, Charles Worthington wrote: >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. AthlonMP 2600 is available. Comparing AthlonMP 2400 to P4 3.06 GHz isn't exactly fair, is it? -Matt
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.