Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:05:08 12/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2003 at 08:25:31, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On December 14, 2003 at 07:15:08, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On December 14, 2003 at 03:50:21, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On December 14, 2003 at 03:31:47, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On December 13, 2003 at 23:56:06, enrico carrisco wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 13, 2003 at 22:09:22, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Including speed, for all applications? Or for all chess programs? >>>>>>If not, why did they now make 2.2 (or 2.0?). >>>>>>S.Taylor >>>>> >>>>>What "3.2GHz" cpu do you speak of? A P4? If so, yes, you would see a nice >>>>>speed up even on 32-bit apps, chess or non-chess. >>>> >>>>I'm speaking of the same company, AMD. >>>>If the difference varies from program to program, which Ghz. of 64 bit-AMD would >>>>you say, is safely a speed-up (over amd/32/3.2Ghz) on ANY application (32 or >>>>64)? >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>>There is no 3.2GHz AMD processor. >> >>Oh! >> >>So whatever it was. 3 Ghz? 2.8 Ghz? >> >>Funny, I thought the 3.2 was Amd. >> >>S.Taylor > >You're thinking of the intel PIV. > >The fastest amd cpu is 2.2 Ghz. To "help" people make performance comparisons, >amd has instituted "performamce ratings." For instance, the 2.2 Ghz athlon xp >has a 3200+ PR. One thing I can say beyond a doubt. I have been running on this quad 2.0ghz opteron, and I have now seen 10M NPS in several positions. I have _never_ seen any single CPU machine that will produce 2.5M nps. For example, my 2.8 will do about 1/2 of that using one cpu, while the opteron is producing 2.5M on a single processor, and acutally a bit more as the NPS is not scaling perfectly. It is an impressive procssor, at least for what I am doing.
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.