Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 14:36:44 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 17:29:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 09, 2004 at 09:36:23, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >bandwidth doesn't count. > >it's random access latency that does count. > >did you try dieter's latency test? > >if so, show the times please. No, I did not run the 'dieter' latency test. Only the two tests I specified in the previous message. Try searching the CCC archive for my posted lmbench & sciencemark results if you'd like to see them. >>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.