Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 21:36:12 04/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 07, 2003 at 18:44:30, Charles Worthington wrote: >On April 07, 2003 at 18:36:11, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>Everyone already knows the Athlon is a numerical powerhouse and the Xeon was >>designed to demux HDTV streams for my grandmother, so there is really no need to >>'show you the speed'. If you just can't understand the obvious, you should >>build yourself a *real* computer. Technology moves fast, and you are already >>being left behind. >> >>anthony > >Perhaps, but that is still talk...I just want someone to come to the server and >enlighten us all as to the error of our ways but it seems that no one is willing >to come show us a real machine. Why could that be do you think? Could it be >because you know you cannot post a faster speed? I can show you deep fritz 7 >screenshots as high as 5777kN/s in endgames with 2500-2900kN/s averages in >midgames. Lets both run a deepfritzmark and post the result here to compare. >That is a relatively simple way to show me what a real machine can do. I think >that is a reasonable request. I just want to see which machine I should be >playing chess with... At world champs 2002 chessbase showed up with AMD hardware. Guess why. Other champs they take what the sponsor gives them. I want to bet that the prescott is not released end of 2003. means that they will show up with dual AMD, because you can't clock the Xeon higher in 0.13 than it is now (3.06Ghz is limit simply as it consumes 105 watt there). Period. So the K7 which still can get clocked higher still than it is now till it also consumes around 100 watts, will get faster and faster till that time. It's already faster now. It's a matter of what the sponsor gives simply!
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.