Author: Charles Worthington
Date: 17:30:53 02/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2003 at 20:28:26, Charles Worthington wrote: >On February 22, 2003 at 17:45:50, Matt Taylor wrote: > >>On February 22, 2003 at 12:05:08, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On February 22, 2003 at 11:38:04, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On February 22, 2003 at 11:05:42, Charles Worthington wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 22, 2003 at 07:08:53, Robert Pawlak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Charles, >>>>>> >>>>>>I am envious, please let us know how you enjoy your new system... >>>>>> >>>>>>Bob >>>>> >>>>>It's nothing to envy, Bob. It was a necessity for my business. I have never >>>>>spent quite_that_much on a machine for my office before. A single 3.06 would >>>>>have done fine for me also but considering that I use it for chess I opted for >>>>>the dual. Rich, I am not, and it certainly stings a little to pay that price for >>>>>a motherboard that I will have to abandon when Intel changes the design on their >>>>>cpus. :-) >>>> >>>>I think that for most people there is no special reason to have a dual for >>>>chess. >>>> >>>>I do not see why is it so important to have the fastest hardware and for a lot >>>>of programs Dual is not faster than single. >>> >>>Maybe not faster, but things run more smoothly on a dual. Having a spare >>>processor to handle the background processes when one chip is at full load is >>>something you can definitely feel as a user. >>> >>>And maybe duals would be more popular if more software supported it, goes hand >>>in hand I think. >>> >>>If only C/C++ had some support for it natively, so you could split at a lower >>>level rather than spawning large threads all the time. Fortran is great here, >>>simple vector operations can be done in parallel. >><snip> >> >>In the operating system it is done with threads or processes. Any abstraction >>from that still returns back to it. Anything that can be done with abstraction >>can always be done with lower-level constructs because abstraction is built upon >>lower-level constructs. >> >>-Matt > > >Actually matt i opted for duals because my intel 2.8 single was getting crushed >by them. And they are required to hold 2900 + on the playchess server >consistently. and for 3000 they are a neccessity. Don't pay much heed to the >rating claims you hear here Matt. I have been on the playchess server for >awhile. The singles may have a lucky run past 2900 but they don't stay there for >long. The notion that double speed equals 20 elo is totally wrong from my >observation. The highest dual is at 3111 and the highest single is lucky to be >at 2900...and even at 2900 he wont be there long if he plays all challengers. In fact if you place a dual 2400mp in a 100 game match with a single 2400xp with equal ratings to start with the dual will be a whole lot higher than 20 above the single when they are done.
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.