Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 20:48:16 04/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 07, 2003 at 22:17:44, Charles Worthington wrote: >On April 07, 2003 at 21:49:17, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On April 07, 2003 at 19:24:08, Charles Worthington wrote: >> >>>On April 07, 2003 at 19:13:50, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>> >>>>Maybe you've never seen a real AMD system. I have 2 Athlons with HyperThreading >>>>enabled (yes, Athlons *do* have it, its not documented and I had to do a little >>>>soldering). With my liquid nitrogen cooling, they reach 2.93 GHZ stably. In >>>>this position >>>> >>>>[D]rn3rk1/2p2pp1/bn2p2p/3qP1B1/1bpPN3/5N2/1PQ1BPPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 15 >>>> >>>>my system reaches 4727 knps. I'd like to see your Xeon do the same, and I notice >>>>you haven't posted any screenshots. Stop living in the past Mr. Worthington. >>>>Your "new" Xeon is only good for watching TV, serving porn, and heating your >>>>room. Thats the problem with Intel technology. It becomes obsolete so quickly. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>anthony >>> >>> >>>I just emailed you the actual screenshot. I do not know how to post a photograph >>>here. Sure i can hit 5777kN/s but not sustained and you cannot sustain 4727kN/s >>>with deep fritz 7. Post the fritzmark result here using deep fritz 7. And if you >>>could sustain 4727kN/s with deep fritz then i suspect you would be the first to >>>come to the server for that ten game match. Talk is always cheaper than action. >>> >>>Sincerely, Charles >> >>He's messing with you. Athlons don't have hyperthreading (and I'm glad they >>don't), and any soldering he'd have to do would be replacing mosfets and >>capacitors on the motherboard to support the wattage of two chips near 3GHz. >>Highest I've seen a dual Athlon is 2.6GHz. Yes, this would smoke any Xeon if >>you're wondering. >> >>When you consider two Xeon 2.8's get about 2.1 million nodes/second in Crafty >>and my single 2.5GHz AthlonXP gets about 1.8 million, you can easily guess what >>a dual XP-2.6GHz would do to even a dual Xeon 3.06. > >Yes Aaron and that was my point. We can overclock all day. AMD's are not the >only overclockable processors. Xeons can be overclocked as well by one who is >knowledgable enough to do so. I am discussing factory, out of the box systems. >It seems unreasonable at best to compare a factory machine to one which is >overclocked unless you overclock them both for a comparison. I am trying to deal >with the figures I see daily and not some of the fantasy figures I have seen >posted here. The ability to build such a system and actually building one are >two entirely different things. In practice they are not often what they seem >they will be on the drawing board. Certainly I am no computer expert but i am >fairly certain that the speedup resulting from overclocking is limited to the >available bandwidth on the motherboard. To my knowledge AMD does not have a >board with 4.1GHz bandwidth (of course I may be wrong). So I am thinking that >there may be some bottlenecks that will slow that system down a bit. The bottom Actually a 200fsb(400MHz) dual channel DDR Nforce2 board supposedly does 6.4gb/s. I have one of these particular boards infact. The dual channel helps to get up to 100% efficiency of regular DDR but it doesn't provide 6.4gb/s. In reality you'll see right at 3.2gb/s at 200fsb. Same goes for the P4. They can say "800MHz bus" and all this nonsense. Could say "4798374987gb/s" if they want, it's NOT getting that or even close. I can guarantee you beyond a doubt I get higher memory scores with *MUCH* lower latencies than your dual Xeon gets. With higher VDD voltages and some overclocking I could do up to 240fsb or so(480 DDR). Currently I run 11.5x220(440DDR) which is 2.53GHz and average 3.5gb/s memory speed. If you want to test your own memory speed go to http://www.sisoftware.demon.co.uk/sandra/ and get the trial version. Run the memory benchmark. >line is that they are both fine processors. I love AMD machines and I lose many >games to them on the server so I know they can perform. Yes my nps are higher by >some 35% than the 2600MP but I still lose games to them. I would not hesitate >one bit to buy any processor made by amd. I know you like to overclock and I >repect that. Personally it is not something that I care for but that doesn't >mean that I am right. It's more a matter of preference than right or wrong I >think. You and I have had some nice sparring matches over this in the past :-))) >and I think we should just agree to disagree on that one issue. But please never >think that I have anything against AMD. Had that been an overclocked Xeon the >post would have read Xeon instead of AMD. I was thinking that it was a glitch in >the cpu that caused the blunder but apparently it was shredder himself moving >too fast in a bit of time trouble. >And, yes, I gave my apologies to the cpu. I apologize if I have seemed >confrontational at times because i certainly do not intend to be. I am just >opinionated I guess. :-) have a nice evening Aaron. > >Sincerely, Charles
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.