Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:32:30 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 17:36:44, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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. > No i won't. they are useless for computerchess. >>>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.