Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 06:39:27 06/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2003 at 00:34:31, Pavel Blokhine wrote: >On June 01, 2003 at 20:39:29, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On June 01, 2003 at 17:35:51, margolies,marc wrote: >> >>>hi all. >>>as there are so many good deep engines out now... >>>i am serioulsy considering assembling a dual processor setup for chess >>>background analysis (on a home lan) and playing (competitively?) >>> >>>What I need from you guys are mobo recommendations uopn which to build a system. >>>i have heard some of you write about an "iwill" brand board. >>>of course I know the specs of the tyan and aopen boards already. >>>Does someone here know if there are any opteron boards floating in the market >>>place yet? ( or is this maximum overkill?) >>> >>>So, I'd appreciate any knowledge mainboard archeitecture recommendations. >>>thanks- marc >> >>I'm not sure about motherboards now days for Athlon systems.. the iWill MPX2 was >>the best one IMO. Now they don't make it any more, which is a shame because it >>was awesome. About processors... I can take special Athlon XP 1700+ chips >>(latest core) and modify them physically to run 2266MHz (2800+ is 2250MHz) on a >>regular 133fsb motherboard and they'll run in SMP. >> >>There are no catches, you just pop in the processor and the motherboard will >>detect it as an Athlon MP 2800+. You don't have to do anything special. The good >>thing is they're extremely cheap AND faster than a dual Xeon 3.06. An added >>bonus is you can pick up a dual Athlon board and two of these modified 2800+ MP >>chips for less than the price of a single 3.06GHz Xeon. >> >>All chips will be fully tested to be completely stable. It's not really >>necessary on the latst cores because all AMD is doing is dropping ~2.4GHz cores >>onto an OPGA package and changing the 'settings' on the chip, marking it to >>whatever the market demands, and selling it. All I'm doing is setting it back to >>what it really is. :) >> >>Also, if requested, I could provide Athlon MP 3200+ to 3400+ chips (2.4-2.53GHz) >>chips, these would technically be considered 'overclocked' and would run at a >>slightly higher voltage than normal.. thus producing a bit of heat (still less >>than a Xeon 3.06, however). I will still test for complete stability of course. > > >Hello Aaron! > >Can you provide evidence to support your claim that AMD 2800 is faster than any >Dual Xeon 3.06? I ask because one guy own a dual AMD 2800 at playchess.com and >his Kn/s with Deep Fritz 7 and Shredder 7.04 and lower than mine in a dual Xeon >3.06 I ran tests with Charles Worthington and without HT the Dual Xeon 3.06 he had was slightly slower (slightly is probably an understatement) than a dual 2600+. With HT it was a little slower (few percent) than a 2800+, we tested single cpu HT & no HT, dual CPU HT & no HT. The engines we tried were Shredder 7, Deep Fritz 7, Fritz 8 and Deep Junior 7. We didn't use any "fritzmark" methods as I've seen those produce "odd" results. We tested nodes/second from a particular position. Also, in crafty the 2800+ running an optimized binary is faster as well. Single Xeon 3.06 got ~1.1 million kn/s, 2800+ got ~1.38 million. Take 1.1 * 1.8 and the xeon should pull 1.98 million kn/s. 1.38 * 1.7 and the dual 2800+ should pull 2.346 million.
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.