Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 11:52:12 07/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2003 at 14:39:57, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On July 23, 2003 at 13:47:55, Michael P. Nance Sr. wrote: > >>On July 23, 2003 at 06:34:53, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>This Quad Opteron performs similar to an Intel 8 way 900 MHz but it cost several >>>thousands less. >>> >>>http://www.einux.com/config/tab.php?model=A4840&table=aserv >> >>Well I think I'm still going to wait for AMD to release Thier 246(2 Ghz) Chips. >>If I'm spending that much on a Multi-Processors Opteron I want it to be the the >>Top Dog where ever I play at. Besides, I don't think windows Server 2003 (64 >>bit)will be out till about X-mas. By that time, I'm sure most of the >>Programmers that have a Program that ranks high on the SSDF list,will have a >>revised 64 bit version out. While on the Subject:how much ram is too much? I >>had a price quoted to Me from Monarch for a Dual Opteron,and the,Motherboard >>would hold up to 12 Gigs of memory.I asked for only 4 gigs of ram. I'm only >>purchasing this system to play Chess Programs with . In Your opinions how much >>Ram am I going to need? And how much would be overkill? Let Me hear Your >>opinions on this Multi-Processing Opteron system. >>>>Mike > >As you can see three Gigabytes of Memory should be sufficient, just like in Deep >Junior vs Kasparov match: > >There were conflicting reports about the hardware. We were using the >four-processor machine with 1.9 GHz Pentium 4 processors. It had an effective >three gigabytes of memory, and all tablebases were installed although never >accessed. We never had a single crash, never rebooted once. So this was the fasted/strongest Junior ever? "The fastest Junior ever, sure, definitely better than the one we used in the WCCC. Not too much of a difference in practical performance. I'm not sure our dual Athlon at home would have done much worse. We were somewhat tempted to use the dual because of some initial difficulties we had with the new hardware, but it was a little better on the quad. The eight-processor machine wouldn't have made much of a difference, although there were a few indications that it would have been a bit better in a few situations. We went with the quad for stability and because we were happy with its performance". http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=799
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.