Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 06:36:23 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 08:32:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 09, 2004 at 08:17:11, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On February 08, 2004 at 21:45:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On February 08, 2004 at 18:12:42, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>> >>>>On February 08, 2004 at 17:21:57, Ingo Bauer wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Shredder8Mark: >>>>>> >>>>>>Athlon XP 2.5GHz / 218fsb(436DDR): >>>>>>64mb hash : 504kn/s - 3712 Shredder8Mark >>>>>>409mb hash: 334kn/s - 2227 Shredder8Mark >>>>>> >>>>>>Athlon XP 2.5GHz / 200fsb(400DDR): >>>>>>64mb hash : 503kn/s - 3712 Shredder8Mark >>>>>>409mb hash: 309kn/s - 2227 Shredder8Mark >>>>>> >>>>>>Athlon XP 2.5GHz / 166fsb(333DDR): >>>>>>64mb hash : 476kn/s - 3712 Shredder8Mark >>>>>>409mb hash: 263kn/s - 1856 Shredder8Mark >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm impressed.. going from 166 to 218 resulted in a 27% increase in kn/s. Way >>>>>>back in the day when I tested Crafty it showed no increase in kn/s from changes >>>>>>in bus speeds (latency or memory bandwidth). Interesting... Looks like my next >>>>>>system will be a freon cooled Athlon FX running over 3GHz and 300fsb >>>>> >>>>>Dont trust this Shreddermark! >>>>> >>>>>Check the same thing with a Fritzmark and/or Crafty. Somethings wrong weith that >>>>>Shreddermark. >>>>> >>>>>Ingo >>>> >>>>I suspected the same.. so.. I did a few tests. The test was done using infinite >>>>analysis from the start position. The ply next to the name of the engine is >>>>where I took the total node count and divided it by the time to ply. >>>>Here are the results: >>>> >>>>Athlon XP 2.5GHz and 384mb hash for all engines: >>>> >>>>Shredder 8 @ 18 ply: >>>>218fsb: 409kn/s >>>>166fsb: 409kn/s >>>> >>>>X3D Fritz @ 15 ply: >>>>218fsb: 1116.9kn/s >>>>166fsb: 1116.9kn/s >>>> >>>>Hiarcs 9 @ 13 ply: >>>>218fsb: 275.35kn/s >>>>166fsb: 269.23kn/s >>>> >>>>Junior 8 @ 17 ply: >>>>218fsb: 1999.54kn/s >>>>166fsb: 1987.98kn/s >>>> >>>>Deep Fritz 7 @ 15 ply: >>>>218fsb: 1144.69kn/s >>>>166fsb: 1129.83kn/s >>>> >>>>As you can see a higher fsb (and lower latency) did next to nothing. >>>>ShredderMark definitely has some problems. >>> >>>Not at all. Shreddermark has NO problems. >>> >>>Shredder like DIEP just uses your RAM more efficient than Fritz&co, however >>>unlike DIEP, shredder is doing it at a way higher nps than DIEP. >>> >>>That means that the number of random accesses to the RAM is really a lot bigger >>>than it is for Fritz&co. >>> >>>I fully understand this from Shredder and i fear the day already that processors >>>get a lot faster without having a L3 cache of say 64MB :) >> >>Do you not see that Shredder got absolutely *NO* increase in kn/s from a 30%+ >>increase in bus speed? In the real world Shredder gets no increase.. in >>ShredderMark it shows odd results and increases.. probably due to GUI overhead >>(spending more time switching to various positions rather than searching a >>position) and poor timer code. > >the short measuring time will have some influence. BUS speed is not holy. >It *must* improve latency. > >Until you manage to proof that something improves latency, you won't find any >speed diffs with shredder using the same cpu, i'm sure of that. > >A faster bus speed doesn't mean a faster latency to memory automatically. > >Only in general it means that. > >Also, you overclock your hardware just too much. > >I'm sure that the 1 week garantuee you give at it is sometimes not even covering >your ****, as it will be broken after 6 days or so :) I already proved that when I increased fsb it decreased my latency by a significant amount. If you recall I managed something like 100ns at 166fsb and 70ns at 218fsb (and 65ns @ 223 or so I think). This was tested with lmbench as well as with sciencemark. Both showed the same result. So, during this test the bandwidth went up over 30% and there was a BIG decrease in latency. No improvements. As for the guarantee.. I have had NO cpus returned or had anyone tell me they had any problems with it. They are OEM chips and AMD doesn't warranty those chips anyway. They are lucky they get ANY warranty from me. If a chip fails I replace it for free and take the loss. This has *NEVER* happened. My personal CPU has been running for over a year at 2.5GHz (from 1.73ghz) and 1.975v. No problems.. I also have a Celeron 566 running 1004MHz air-cooled. It is my business system (accounting, filing, etc) and has been running 1.0 to 1.2ghz since I first got it a few years ago. It too has had *NO* problems. Nor has the Athlon Thunderbird 1GHz AXIA running 1.5ghz in my fiances computer. It too has been running many years without ANY problems. My server is a Duron 600 running 1GHz.. it had something like 300 days of uptime before I took it down because the ball bearings on the fan were failing. This as you know has nothing to do with overclocking. I just replaced the fan and the system went back up as usual... no problems. Before that I use to run a dual Celeron 400 @ 552MHz as the server. No problems with it, either. Don't blame me for you blowing up computers. If they explode for you apparently you think no one can do it.. or no cpu will last more than 12 seconds overclocked. Just because you cannot doesn't mean someone else cannot. If I recall correctly you expressed the same attitude in the past in regards to chess programming.. I'm sure Hyatt knows what I'm talking about. In short. If you're going to overclock.. do it properly and know you're taking risks. If you blow up something don't go harassing the people that can overclock. I know what I'm doing Vincent.. so I don't want to hear any comments or opinions on the matter from you.
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.