Author: Slater Wold
Date: 07:41:57 12/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2003 at 03:22:17, enrico carrisco wrote: >On December 28, 2003 at 02:40:15, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On December 28, 2003 at 01:36:50, enrico carrisco wrote: >> >>>On December 27, 2003 at 12:22:30, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>On December 27, 2003 at 07:49:34, Aloisio Ponti Lopes wrote: >>>> >>>>>. >>>> >>>>Athlon 64 FX51 (2.2Ghz) = 1.64M nps >>>>Opteron 2.2Ghz = 1.64M nps >>>>Athlon 64 3200+ (2.0Ghz) = 1.50M nps >>>>P4 3.6Ghz = 1.48M nps >>>>AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2Ghz) = 1.45M nps >>>>P4 3.2Ghz Extreme Edition = 1.37M nps >>>>Opteron 1.8Ghz = 1.35M nps >>>>P4 3.0Ghz = 1.23M nps >>> >>>Did you run all these tests or have they been calculated another way? >>> >>>-elc. >> >>I ran the FX51, the P4 3.6, and the P4 3.0Ghz tests. >> >>The others were calculated based on SPEC. > >Reason I ask is because 1.45M nps for an XP 2.2GHz with an unoptimized (or not >fully optimized) binary is a bit overstated in my opinion. 1.54M nps is what >Aaron's 2.5GHz XP with an *optmized* binary gets. Since I have never seen >anyone with a faster AMD binary than Aaron, I have to guess that the one you ran >wouldn't be either. > >Thus, with Aaron's binary, an XP 2.2 should get ~ 1.36M nps. > >-elc. Aaron's 2.5Ghz was like 3% slower than a true Barton 2.2Ghz, on the perft bench for Albert's distributed project. These tests were run with an optimized exe; Dann's.
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.