Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: questions about hardware for WCCC

Author: Joachim Rang

Date: 09:03:13 06/17/04

Go up one level in this thread


On June 17, 2004 at 11:58:39, Thomas McBurney wrote:

>>>
>>>Are you sure that the difference is smaller than 10%.
>>>
>>>I thought that opteron is always better than athlon(otherwise I do not
>>>understand why selling opteron1.8 ghz is 2488$ based on the link when the
>>>Athlon64 is significantly cheaper).
>>>
>>>1.8ghz is more than 10% less than 2.2ghz so your words suggest that
>>>athlon64 3200ghz is both cheaper and faster than the opteron244 1.8ghz.
>>>
>>>If this is the case then what is the reason to buy opteron1.8ghz?
>>>
>>>I am interested in the number of nodes per second that public movei get in the
>>>opening position with the athlon.
>>>
>>>I remember impressive results of slater with the opteron and I have no idea if
>>>the athlon can get close to it.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>Here is slater results:
>>http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=364613
>>
>>Can you get above 600 Knodes per second with athlon64 3200?
>>
>>Uri
>
>
>Here is what I got with my Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2Ghz)...  Over 500Knps
>
> adjudicate parameter  9999999 hash_in_mbytes=16
>no problem in allocating hash tablesgo
>
>new
>analyse
>Error (unknown command): analyse
>analyze
> 1 35 0 20 b1c3
> 2 9 0 44 b1c3 b8c6
>2 10 0 65 d2d4
> 2 16 0 85 d2d4 b8c6
>2 17 0 120 e2e4
> 2 21 0 140 e2e4 b8c6
> 2 21 0 160 e2e4 b8c6
> 3 40 0 384 e2e4 e7e5 f1c4
> 3 40 0 532 e2e4 e7e5 f1c4
> 4 6 0 944 e2e4 e7e5 d1h5 b8c6
> 4 6 0 1664 e2e4 e7e5 d1h5 b8c6
> 5 34 1 4885 e2e4 d7d5 b1c3 g8f6 e4d5 f6d5 f1b5 c7c6 c3d5 d8d5
> 5 34 1 7032 e2e4 d7d5 b1c3 g8f6 e4d5 f6d5 f1b5 c7c6 c3d5 d8d5
> 6 10 3 14087 e2e4 e7e5 b1c3 f8c5 d1g4 g7g5
> 6 10 5 23311 e2e4 e7e5 b1c3 f8c5 d1g4 g7g5
> 7 12 9 44192 e2e4 d7d5 e4e5 b8c6 d2d4 c8f5 b1c3
>7 13 10 49113 d2d4
> 7 30 16 78459 d2d4 e7e6 c1f4 b8c6 g1f3 f8b4 c2c3 b4e7
> 7 30 18 90784 d2d4 e7e6 c1f4 b8c6 g1f3 f8b4 c2c3 b4e7
> 8 9 37 181605 d2d4 g8f6 b1c3 d7d5 e2e3 c8g4 f1e2 g4f5
> 8 9 63 315426 d2d4 g8f6 b1c3 d7d5 e2e3 c8g4 f1e2 g4f5
> 9 11 90 444793 d2d4 g8f6 e2e3 e7e6 g1f3 b8c6 f1b5 f8b4 c1d2 b4d6
>9 12 153 762455 g1f3
> 9 11 159 793939 d2d4 g8f6 e2e3 e7e6 g1f3 b8c6 f1b5 f8b4 c1d2 b4d6
> 9 11 162 805632 d2d4 g8f6 e2e3 e7e6 g1f3 b8c6 f1b5 f8b4 c1d2 b4d6
> 10 10 255 1259235 d2d4 g8f6 b1c3 e7e6 g1f3 f8b4 c1g5 h7h6 g5f4 b8c6
>10 11 347 1724539 b1c3
> 10 18 423 2109301 b1c3 b8c6 d2d4 e7e6 g1f3 f8b4 e2e4 d7d5 c1g5 g8e7
> 10 18 506 2506522 b1c3 b8c6 d2d4 e7e6 g1f3 f8b4 e2e4 d7d5 c1g5 g8e7
> 11 15 736 3651695 b1c3 d7d5 d2d4 g8f6 g1f3 e7e6 c1f4 f8b4 e2e3 b4c3 b2c3 b8c6
>11 16 911 4538629 d2d4
> 11 19 1312 6561757 d2d4 g8f6 g1f3 e7e6 e2e3 b8c6 f1b5 a7a6 b5c6 d7c6 b1c3
> 11 19 1532 7661787 d2d4 g8f6 g1f3 e7e6 e2e3 b8c6 f1b5 a7a6 b5c6 d7c6 b1c3
> 12 11 3251 16234567 d2d4 g8f6 g1f3 e7e6 e2e3 d7d5 b1c3 f8b4 f3e5 e8g8 a2a3 b4a5
>
>12 12 4237 21186012 e2e4
> 12 16 6105 30890142 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1b5 f8c5 d2d3 g8e7 e1g1 e8g8 b1c3 d7d6
>
> 12 16 7376 37360686 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 b8c6 f1b5 f8c5 d2d3 g8e7 e1g1 e8g8 b1c3 d7d6
>
> 13 12 11743 60019447 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 g8f6 b1c3 b8c6 f1c4 f6e4 c3e4 d7d5 c4b5 d5e
>4 b5c6 b7c6 f3e5


500knps seems a bit slow for a AMD 64 clocked with 2.2 GHZ. Are you sure you
don't have an 3200+ whith 1024 KB 2nd level cache which is clocked with 2.0 GHz?

regards Joachim



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.