Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 05:42:10 06/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2004 at 06:33:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On June 17, 2004 at 21:39:26, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>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? > >Apologies to Slate! > >I meant the always objective Gordon. > >> >>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. > >In general my statement is true. Test it yourself whether TSCP profits more from >faster RAM than Shredder. The reason for this is trivial but not that anyone >cares. > >Using games software type Quake or Half Life 2 to prove things about >chessprograms is not very clever. > >Note that i test a lot but simply don't post it at CCC and won't post it either. I never said, "Because this is slow in Quake3 it will be slow in chess". Please quote me somewhere. I only said, applications like that will be slow on Celerons with the P4 core. Then I described it's performance at chess, which is much different. I was trying to warn someone that if they DID get a Celeron(p4) for chess that it would be ok, but if they ran anything else it would be extremely slow.
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.