Author: Tim Foden
Date: 00:47:39 01/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2004 at 23:18:10, margolies,marc wrote: >Briefly, your question is about the 3400XP+ which is a socket 748 chip. Erm... There is no XP for A64, and I believe it is socket 754. :) >I am writing about the Athlon64FX which is a socket 940 chip. >I don't doubt that you can get alot of good benchmarks out the cheaper chip with >its narrower datapath-- at least many purposes and games. >But let's restrict or dicussion to very memory intensive stuff. Look more >carefully at benchmarks related to scientific computing (I think) like PI >calculations to get a better idea of chess performance. For chess the bandwidth to memory is probably not as important as the latency. The A64 3400+ actually has smaller latency than the A64 FX 51, due to being able to use unregistered DIMMs, so I'd not be sure which is the fastest for chess without actually testing them both with a chess program. In any case I think the difference for chess is likely to be very small, whichever is fastest. Cheers, Tim. >Also, I would not look at the chip out of the context of the chipsets which >supprt it. If you can make a case that chipsets serving a socket 748 do a better >job for chess than the chipsets for 940 socket chips-- the ones which also serve >2-way and 8-way servers, I'd love to read it. > > > > >On January 22, 2004 at 23:06:30, Paul Doire wrote: > >>What about these? Comparable performance at half the price ? >>Or am i missing something? >> >> >>http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1941
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.