Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 18:39:26 06/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2004 at 14:35:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On June 17, 2004 at 12:47:51, Dan Honeycutt wrote: > >>On June 16, 2004 at 18:45:02, Aaron Gordon wrote: >> >>> >>>In Quake3 for example.. my Epox 8RDA with a Duron 600 running at 600MHz got >>>identical FPS to a Celeron 2.4GHz, this was with the same ram and videocard. >>> >> >>I ask from ignorance, but it would seem FPS for Quake is a considerably >>different animal than NPS for chess - much more memory involved w/FPS. Can you >>make a valid assumption on how a processor would do for chess based on how it >>does for Quake? >> >>Dan H. > >You cannot. > >Better watch aceshardware.com, diep is getting tested there by Johan de Gelas. > >He is a very acurate tester. Note he doesn't always mention how many threads he >tests nor the memory. Default all hardware there has all memory banks filled >with cas2 memory. Filling all memory banks makes a huge difference for stronger >chessprograms nowadays. > >Slate here is not in objective business, but in overclocking and bad comparision >business. What does Slate have to do with this conversation? Or in all your spectacular brilliance did you forget who wrote the message? Also, show some results where all filled banks of memory gain a 'huge' improvement for 'stronger' chess programs. Filled banks won't gain a huge improvement for the weaker ones? :P They won't gain an advantage for *any* chess program. All tests I've done that have full banks vs 1 bank, via, nvidia as well as an Intel 440BX chipset show that adding banks does not change the latency at all, only bandwidth. Interleaving was of course enabled. I've tested 0, 2, 4 bank, etc. Search posts I've made here long ago. In most cases the increase in performance is extremely small in memory intensive applications. In chess programs there was absolutely no difference in performance when improving memory bandwidth such a small amount. I noticed more of an increase (which was still miniscule) when decreasing memory latency. This was done via lowering memory timings (2-2-2-5 for example vs 3-4-4-11) and increasing FSB speed. Also, this was only at VERY large hash size. Anything less than 256mb had absolutely *0* difference. I notice Vincent you do next to NO testing of your own. You make ridiculous claims/statements and then make everyone else work to prove what you said is a heap of bull****. Why not do some of this testing yourself, like I and other people here have? Do you not know how? Too lazy? Rather run your mouth and look like a fool? I find it hard to believe you don't have enough money to just test some hardware for a short period of time. Perhaps you lack friends to help with testing? I am 'poor' and yet I find ways of testing the hardware. I have friends with the hardware to help test for me, or with me when the hardware required to run the tests is not available to me first hand. Get some professional 'help' with your mental condition, start treating people like you would like to be treated and you'll notice a world of difference in the way people respond to you.
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.