Author: David Mitchell
Date: 03:33:57 06/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 02:34:57, Aaron Gordon wrote: >On June 15, 2004 at 01:47:02, David Mitchell wrote: > >>On June 14, 2004 at 21:25:48, Aaron Gordon wrote: >> >>>On June 14, 2004 at 21:07:03, David Mitchell wrote: >>> >>>>On June 14, 2004 at 20:43:04, Jim wrote: >>>> >>>>>In your opinion what is the best processor to have for chess programs? >>>>>I have noticed on the SSDF rating list that the Athlon 1200 is used >>>>>for the higher rated chess programs. >>>>>I also read at one time on this site that the Pentium processor's >>>>>do not perform as well with chess program's. >>>>>Your opinion is greatly appreciated. >>>>>Jim >>>> >>>>The "best" CPU for chess programs will depend on the program, but in general: >>>> >>>>1) Opteron >>>>2) Xeon >>>>3) Itanium >>>>4) Centrino >>>>5) Athlon >>>>6) Pentium III >>>>7) Pentium 4 >>>> >>>>The above assumes ** equal speed ** of the processor (which is never the case), >>>>and the program being optimized for that processor. Even within a single CPU, >>>>different versions have different sizes of cache, etc., again changing their >>>>capability. >>>> >>>>After AMD's strong showing with their new Opteron, you know that Intel is >>>>working hard on a new 64 bit processor. When it is released, the list will >>>>certainly change. >>>> >>>>The above is my opinion, and certainly not the result of some exhaustive tests. >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>>Current Xeon chips are P4's with more L2 cache and multiprocessor support. Their >>>performance in chess programs are identical to Pentium 4 chips. The older Xeon >>>with the P3 core is identical to the Pentium 3 in chess speed, etc. >> >>Respectfully disagree, Aaron. A processor with identical chip, but a larger L2 >>cache, should definitely be a faster CPU for most chess programs, given the same >>clock speed, etc.. >> >>Anytime you can limit time consuming fetches from main memory, you're speeding >>things up. >> >>Thanks for the info on the CPU cores, however. >> >>Dave > >I've run tests with various L2 cache sizes, Dave. The highest speedup I observed >was between the Tbred & Barton, which was less than 1%. Test it for yourself if >you'd like to see. > >There is absolutely no way adding a little bit of L2/L3 cache it is going to >magically knock the performance up over 60% in a chess engine, because basically >thats what it'll take for a Xeon (p4 core) to overtake an 'old' Athlon XP/MP. My >dual Athlon MP 2.5GHz is 40-50% faster than a dual Xeon 2.8GHz in crafty, for >example. > >With optimized versions of Crafty (one binary for the P4, one for the XP) I show >the Athlon XP/MP is about 60% faster MHz for MHz vs a Xeon/P4. The Athlon XP >2800+ (Tbred core, 166/333fsb) is 2250MHz. 2250*1.6=3600. So, an Athlon XP 2800+ >== a theoretical Xeon 3.6 > >In 32bit chess programs an Athlon FX is 20-30% faster than an Athlon XP in >chess, and the Athlon FX-53 is 2.4GHz. Which would be like running a >2.88-3.12GHz Athlon XP.. which would be like running a P4/Xeon at 4.6-5.0GHz. >Now, throw it in 64bit mode and it's even more of an annihilation. :) As Hyatt >reported, I believe a single Opteron 2.2 in 64bit mode at crafty was faster than >his dual Xeon 2.8GHz box. > >So, in reality, the list would be like this for a MHz for MHz comparison: > >#1: Athlon FX 939 pin (low latency DDR, non-registered/non-ECC memory) >#2: Athlon 64 754 pin (same ram as 939) >#3: Opteron / Athlon FX 940 pin (registered+ECC, higher latency) >#4: Centrino (souped up Pentium 3) >#5: Athlon XP / MP (Tbred/Barton cores) >#6: Pentium 3 (Coppermine/Tualatin) / Xeon (P3 core) >#7: Pentium 4 (Northwood) / Xeon (P4 core) >#8: Pentium 4 (Prescott, runs about 20% slower than Northwood at chess per MHz) When you compared chess program speed with same CPU except for a different L2 cache size, can you tell me what the L2 sizes were, and what chess program you used for the comparison? Crafty is so cache-stingy, it might not make a big difference, but I'd be amazed if a program like TSCP, wouldn't see a sizeable difference if the L2 cache size was doubled. Of course, I've been amazed before, and nothing beats a little testing - all theories aside, you see the darndest results! Dave
This page took 0.01 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.