Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 17:22:44 06/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 16, 2004 at 13:11:24, Yen Art Tham wrote: >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) > >Would the Athlon 64 939 pin be just as fast as an Athlon FX 939 pin? > >>#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) This is where it gets confusing. From what I understand they're the same thing. A lot of places refer to the Athlon 64 as the 64 and the Athlon FX as the FX, but just as many places call it the Athlon 64 FX and the Athlon 64. The pins are one good way to distinguish which one is which. If it has 940 pins it is either an Opteron or Athlon FX, if it has 939 pins it is an Athlon FX (64 FX). If it has 754 pins then it'll be the standard Athlon 64. The difference is the 940 pin version has the dual channel controller, plus a pin for registered memory stuff. 939 pin is the dual channel minus that pin (allowing the use of non-registered/non-ecc memory). The 754 pin Athlon 64 has the single channel controller (and works with non-registered/non-ecc mem). As far as chess goes, they should be extremely close (939 Athlon FX and 754 64). As far as the best bang for your buck goes between the 64bit Athlon processors for chess. The best would be to get the fastest Athlon 754 pin. If you want memory twice as fast (for gaming, encoding, etc), then go for the 939.
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.