Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 04:19:34 06/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2004 at 06:43:00, Joachim Rang wrote: >On June 21, 2004 at 06:14:58, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 21, 2004 at 05:51:40, Joachim Rang wrote: >> >>>On June 21, 2004 at 05:24:33, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>I talk with a person and he tells me that Xeon2 is new technology and it is >>>>better than opteron but it simply does not fit the price that I agree to pay for >>>>it. >>>> >>>>He tells me that there are graphs that tell that Xeon2 is better. >>>>When I tell him that people in this forum told me that pentium4 is relatively >>>>bad he tells me that he does not trust them(note that he does not deal with >>>>chess programs). >>>> >>> >>>that's the point. Xeons are fine for certain applications and in generally I >>>would say not worse than Opterons (but not better neither and much more >>>expansive). >>> >>>For certain applications Xeons will outperform Opterons significantly and for >>>others (such as chess programs) Opterons will outperform Xeons significantly. >>>That is what all people in that board are telling you, so no need to ask other >>>people who know nothing about chess performance. >>> >>> >>>>He also claims that the Athlon64 is the same quality as the pentium4 that I can >>>>get. >>>>He agrees that the opteron is better than normal pentium4 that I can get. >>>> >>> >>>this is all wrong. You can't no more make such general statements, since the >>>performance for different purposes very widely. In general the P4 has also its >>>merits and performs in some multimedia applciation very well, but for chess... >>> >>>>I am interested to know if there is some graph that shows that the opteron and >>>>even the athlon64 is better than the xeon2. >>>> >>> >>>look at the benchmarks given in this board and here: >>> >>>http://www.beepworld.de/members39/computerschach2/chessmarks.htm >> >>As far as I can see the leader is xeon and not athlon and the xeon is more than >>twice faster in nps than second place so the reason is not having 2 processors >>against one. > > >This is misleading: the 1st entry is with two processors and HT enabled so >apparently using 4 processors. Fritz than pushes the nps in the sky but that >does not mean that it reaches greater depth (probably the contrary is true). > >DualXeon 3,565 2953 kn/s Jens H. (Deep Fritz8, 2 CPU) > >The "realistic" value is the 4th one: > >DualXeon 3,565 1326 kn/s Jens H. (Fritz8; 1 CPU) > >And that is an overclocked Xeon, so a standard Xeon @ 3.2 GHz would give 1190 >knps. Compare that to 1405 with AMD 64 @ 2.2 GHz! I don't think you get 1405 kn/s on a "normal" A3400+. There is something wrong. Two others reported ~1330 kn/s for AMD 64 @ 2.2 Ghz. Michael
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.