Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: probably yes, but slower than an AMD 64 3000+

Author: Bryan Hofmann

Date: 05:34:42 06/09/04

Go up one level in this thread


On June 08, 2004 at 16:04:31, Aaron Gordon wrote:

>On June 08, 2004 at 15:47:23, Bryan Hofmann wrote:
>
>>On June 08, 2004 at 13:19:51, Joachim Rang wrote:
>>
>>>On June 08, 2004 at 08:47:36, Bryan Hofmann wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 08, 2004 at 08:11:54, Joachim Rang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On June 08, 2004 at 06:36:37, Chris Taylor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Have not had time to fully experiment with the thing yet, but early indications
>>>>>>show it to be a tad faster.  Will do some bench marking!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any one had any good reports with the C 1.7?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would like to squeeze some more nps for Crafty, and Rebel 12..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The Athlon XP 3000+ is clocked with 2100 MHz and according to this page it will
>>>>>peform worse than the Pentium - M 1.7 Ghz, but don't forget the Athlon XP 3000+
>>>>>costs half the price of C 1.7. An AMD 64 3000+ which is still much cheaper than
>>>>>an C 1.7 is even faster than C 1.7 and will gain from 64 Bit - Software in the
>>>>>near future:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.beepworld.de/members39/computerschach2/chessmarks.htm
>>>>
>>>>My standard non-overclocked XP 3000+ is at 2171 Mhz and I see no performance
>>>>results on this page that indicate that the C 1.7 is faster than the XP 3000+.
>>>
>>>
>>>than you have the "old" XP 3000+ the one with higher MHz and slower FSB.
>>>Nevertheless for Fritz the Pentium - M 1.7 Ghz should be a bit faster than your
>>>3000+
>>
>>No it is not old and the FSB is 166/333 same as the other XPs except the 3200+
>>which has 200/400 FSB.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Centrino 1.7 GHz  1166 KN/s    Norbert Baumann
>>>
>>>AMD XP 2700+/2167 1080 kN/s    Michael42
>>>
>>
>>There is no such animal as a XP 2700+, They only made XP 2500+, XP 2800+ XP
>>3000+ and XP 3200+. One of the biggest differences in the XP is that it has
>>twice the L2 cache (512KB) of the Thoroughbred-B core (256KB). So the above
>>comparison of using this Thoroughbred-B 2700+ is not the same as a XP3000+.
>
>AMD did infact make an Athlon XP 2700+. It came as the 2166.6MHz 256k L2, 1.65v,
>166fsb(333DDR) core. Model 8. Here is the AMD tech doc with the 2700+ processor
>specifications:
>
>http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25175.pdf

I stand corrected, it has been a while (ok a long while) since I have kept up
with all of the changes and Specs. The XP 2700+ was created with the
Thoroughbred-B core the biggest news here was the faster FSB of 166/333 and an
additional layer over the Thoroughbred-A. The XP 3000+ I have have is the Barton
core which has has twice the L2 cache of the Thoroughbred-B. It would appear
that Joachim was refering to the Thoroughbred-B 3000+ which as far as I know
never hit the streets as the Barton core was released with the larger L2 cache.

>
>
>My personal favorite for chess (non-overclocked XP) would be the 2800+. It was
>2.25GHz, 166/333ddr, had 256k L2 and faster than any other XP chip. As far as
>overclocking goes.. slap in a 2600+ mobile (works in regular boards) and push it
>up to 2.6-2.7GHz for $100. :) They work in dual configuration, too.
>
>>>regards Joachim
>>>
>>>P.S.: Do yoo owe Fritz 8? It would be interesting if you could run a Fritzmark
>>
>>Don't have any commercial engines. As far as benchmarking goes with something
>>like a chess engine it is really going to depend on how it was compiled and what
>>CPU it is optimzed for. Most commercial programs tend to favor Intel based CPUs
>>for marketing reasons.



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.