Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 07:54:24 06/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2003 at 09:07:34, Terry McCracken wrote: >On June 23, 2003 at 07:44:42, Sally Weltrop wrote: > >>On June 22, 2003 at 20:15:10, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On June 22, 2003 at 17:32:51, Dan Andersson wrote: >>> >>>> Nice way of spreading the DIY spirit in chess. But one can only wonder what >>>>made him go Xeon. The reasons would be interesting to know. >>>> >>>>MvH Dan Andersson >>> >>>Why does Amir and Shay? Why does Bob.....etc....maybe there is something >>>better..over say a few hundred nodes per sec? >>> >>>Better parts? Better support? Got to be something?;-) >> >>maybe it's just emotion. What are comparisions for Dual Athlon & Intel in chess. >>I am seriously thinking about getting a dual setup. Intel costs a lot more is >>the first thing I noticed. >>> >>>Terry > > >No...believe it or not you get what you pay for, as a rule. > >I would trust Intel over AMD, albiet you'll get maybe a bit more speed for the >top duel Athlon, it will make little or no practical difference how well an >engine will play. > >It may make no difference at all. I've seen an engine play the same moves with a >50% speed up....so what will 10% do? Probably nothing. Get what you pay for? More like if you buy Intel, you DON'T get what you pay for. If you check AMD/Intel history, Intel has had more cpu bugs, problems, recalls and etc. over AMD by far. That is a fact, I'm sure many of the progammers here know this. Just because something is more expensive doesn't mean it's better.
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.