Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 13:56:27 06/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 2003 at 14:54:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 03, 2003 at 13:18:15, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On June 03, 2003 at 11:44:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 02, 2003 at 09:39:27, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>> >>>Your math on the end is not quite right. >>> >>>The 1.7/1.8 numbers are _not_ NPS multipliers. They are time-to-solution >>>measures. IE a program will find the move in 1/1.7th the time, even though >>>its raw NPS will likely be almost 2.0 faster. >>> >>>At least for Crafty, (and excepting my dual 2.8 xeon which is the exception >>>at the moment) my NPS will almost exactly double with two cpus, and almost >>>exactly quadruple with four cpus. But the time to find a particular move will >>>not be 1/2 or 1/4, but more like 1/1.7 or 1/3.1 roughly). >>> >>>Don't depend on NPS to say much about parallel searching. It is a _good_ >>>measure to compare hardware, of course. >> >>I understand completely, but in this case more nps is better.. since it'd be the >>same program, same number of threads, etc. From the testing I've seen a dual >>Athlon box with my binary gets a 1.70x speedup in NPS, dual Xeon gets 1.80x. >> >>Also, before I forget again.. ne question I had a while back was with Crafty in >>the wild 7 position.. just reminded me about it. With some very brief testing in >>linux w/ crafty being compiled under GCC I noticed the time to ply was much >>higher with two cpus vs 1. I'll grab the latest crafty and see if it still does >>it.. If so, any ideas as to whats going on? Will post back in a few with the >>results of the latest Crafty on the Dual Celeron 550... > >Odd things happen in simple endgames, due to hashing. The two processes >interact by sharing info thru hashing. And that can affect the time to >solution significantly. IE the time to a particular depth might be longer, >but due to the shared hash info, the actual search might be "better".... > >That's what makes parallel search so much fun. Indeed. Should be getting a dual Athlon board soon, going to try dual 2.4GHz MP's (true 2.4GHz). Assuming the board can handle it perhaps we can have a "dual duel" :)
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.