Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:52:03 12/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2003 at 22:07:23, Peter Kasinski wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 20:25:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 15:05:29, Peter Kasinski wrote: >> >>>On December 08, 2003 at 15:31:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 08, 2003 at 14:32:15, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 08, 2003 at 13:08:41, Slater Wold wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 08, 2003 at 12:55:36, Leen Ammeraal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I saw the Athlon 64 based >>>>>>>"PC Vobis Power 64 3200+ XD" (euro 1299). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>How does this compare with an Intel P4 3.2 EE ? >>>>>>>Which would you prefer for chess? >>>>>>>Leen >>>>>> >>>>>>According to http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/a64fx_51_launch.shtml, the >>>>>>3.2EE would be faster. >>>>> >>>>>Shame they only tested (except for UT2k3) applications where the P4 does decent. >>>>>As I said in a previous post.. where is DVD2AVI (where an Athlon does best for >>>>>Mpeg encoding). It is much faster than XMpeg for me (on my XP). Also, in Povray >>>>>(a renderer a normal person would use, rather than drop $4000 for one of the >>>>>ones they use to test) the Athlon is a good 50%+ faster than the P4. In 64bit >>>>>mode it is something like 3 times faster. The Athlon FX is even faster than the >>>>>XP. Expecially for chess, which I believe what he was asking about in the first >>>>>place. >>>>> >>>>>Go test Fritz, Shredder, Crafty, etc. on a 2.2GHz FX. You'll see in 32bit mode >>>>>you'll gain 20-30% over an Athlon XP (which is already faster than a P4 for >>>>>chess). >>>>> >>>>>About PCMark and 3DMark (all made by madonion/futuremark).. they're all bunk. >>>>>PCMark is biased towards the P4 and now that ATI slapped them with some cash >>>>>they're biased towards ATI. If you don't believe me, try this. Get a Pentium 2 >>>>>400MHz (yes, 400MHz) and a Radeon 9700 pro, 9800, whatever. Now, put a Geforce4 >>>>>ti4600 in a P4-3.2EE, Athlon FX 2.8GHz, you name it.. doesn't matter. The >>>>>Pentium 2 400MHz will get a higher 3DMark. Why? Well, thats what happens when >>>>>you dump a ton of cash on a company.. they do what you want. >>>>> >>>>>The semi-technical reason why it is like this was something nvidia found out. >>>>>They found that the way futuremark did the pixel shaders was ridiculous. Adding >>>>>a specific loop (or something like that, you can search for it on google) that >>>>>only the ATI chips could do.. and the entire test setup was this crap. In real >>>>>life, and in any other 3D program the Geforce4 on the faster CPU would >>>>>absolutely kill the P2-400MHz with the 9700 Pro. This is an example of the crap >>>>>companies do to fool customers. >>>>> >>>>>I've done the testing (P4-2.53 @ 3.32ghz and limited testing at 3.5ghz) for >>>>>chess and other programs, my Athlon XP at 2.5GHz beat it in 95% of the tests and >>>>>ALL of the chess programs. An Athlon FX 2.2GHz is 20-30% faster than an XP at >>>>>2.2GHz, so you can figure it'd be equal to an XP 2.64-2.86GHz.. which is >>>>>definitely faster than any P4 (even if they clocked it up to 4GHz and more) to >>>>>date. If you want the fastest, go for this: >>>>>http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000268 >>>>> >>>>>Plus, if you get a P4-3.2EE what do you think you'll be doing when lots of the >>>>>chess programs go to 64bit, and most of everything else? You'll end up buying an >>>>>Athlon FX.. the P4 will get smoked even more when 64bit stuff hits the scene. >>>>>You can get one now and when everything switches over you won't have to upgrade >>>>>at all. If you do go with a P4-EE you'll just be one of many who wonder why it >>>>>isn't as fast as the 'review' pages say. >>>>> >>>>>If in doubt, test it yourself.. I did. >>>> >>>> >>>>I agree about the amd64 speeds. IE a 1.8ghz opteron is faster than my >>>>2.8ghz xeon by a significant margin. One cpu test puts the 1.8ghz opteron >>>>at a bench speed of 1,639.241 nps. My 2.8ghz xeon weighs in at 1,079,714 >>>>nps. Add .4ghz to reach 3.2, and add .4 to reach amd's 2.2, and the >>>>amd is going to be 50-60% _faster_... >>> >>>Bob, could you please clarify if there is any special recompiling involved, or >>>do these numbers represent Crafty's performance in the version as is - from your >>>site. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>PK >> >>Version 19.5/19.6, exactly from my web site. 19.7 will have a linux-amd64 >>makefile target so that you can use _exactly_ what I use to compile as well, >>if you have an opteron with the Suse 9 release. >> >>BTW, I finally got a PGO compile to work. It was slower. Not by much, >>but it was slower. Oddball result for sure. (-fprofile-arcs and later >>-fbranch-probabilities). You can _not_ PGO on multithreaded code, however, >>it will wreck the .da files horribly. >> >>I can post my amd makefile target if you want... > >Thank you, this answers my question. >By the way - do you know what the new 2Mb cache does to the Xeon chip? >How might it alter the above prediction? > >Thanks, >PK 2mb xeons have been around for years. My quad 700 has 1mb L2 for example, and 2mb xeons were available, just way too pricey. I have run on them, and the speed advantage was maybe 10%, while the cost per cpu was about $5,000 when I did the test. the 512K processors were $1K and the 1mb L2 cache processors were about $2400. When I bought my 700's the 1mb versions were 1300 bucks, but the 2mb versions were still stuck up at 4,000+... It wasn't worth the cost. although if cost were no object, 2mb is certainly faster.
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.