Author: David Mitchell
Date: 00:55:43 06/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2004 at 02:20:04, Ingo Bauer wrote: >Sorry, but I have to disagree respectfully. The increase in speed for chess from >a Thunderbird-Athlon to a Barton-Athlon, or from 256 KB to 512KB was close to >nothing. (For sure less than 3%) The rest is marketing. > >(OKOK, some Video-Hyper-Gaming-3D gadgets may be faster) > >> >>Thanks for the info on the CPU cores, however. >> >>Dave > >Bye Ingo Thanks for your input, Ingo. However, I had two experiences that made me think quite differently: 1) A motherboard that would destroy any cache chips, after a few weeks for use. I could always tell when the chips were dead, because * every * program would run * very, very, slowly *. 2) A booklet on a cpu's design. The cpu couldn't compete with the improvements of the x86 type, but the info was very revealing. Particularly how it stressed the design and efficiency of the cache, L1 and L2. Your info is revealing since the L1 cache in some cases, remained the same, with only the L2 cache size changing, while in other trials, the L1 changed. As far as video gaming, that's a real rarity for me. Thanks again, Ingo. Dave
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.