Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 06:15:59 06/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2004 at 07:19:34, Drexel,Michael wrote: >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 Perhaps they were unlucky? Other Mobo? Better RAM? I mean 5% difference is normal if RAM and Mobo differ. 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.