Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 20:47:22 12/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2003 at 23:05:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Before you disdained Amd in favor of Intel. Now you are sounding very much like a fan. Amd has consistently made greater strides with its series of processors than Intel. It started with the mediocre K5. It was only a little inferior with the K6-2. It more or less equalized with the Athlon. Now it has pulled solidly ahead with the Hammer. A remarkable story considering it was up against a giant with vastly greater resources. The Itanium is the worst processor ever produced when you consider how much money Intel threw at it and how much they got in return. Most companies would have been put out of business by the chip many times over. The Itanium 2 improved, but compared to opteron, it is way too expensive. A dual opteron system is cheaper than a single Itanium 2 and performance-wise can run circles around it to boot. The Itanium 2 only gets interesting in an 8-way configuration, but the market is too tiny for it to recoup the incredible amount if money Intel has spent. Intel seems to be running a charity as far as I can see. When Intel announced it had no plans to follow suit with its own version of the hammer, I wondered how it could be that wasn't a major blunder. What did Intel have up its sleave? When the Hammer release slipped by about year, I started to think maybe Intel knew Amd was going to fall on its ass. Now that opteron is here, the only one who looks like they might fall on their ass is Intel. However, with Intel's resources, it can afford a lot of expensive misadventures and still remain the industry leader, but you have to wonder how long this can remain true. Amd continues to execute with amazing consistency. Very impressive for such a relatively tiny company.
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.