Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:51:52 06/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2004 at 09:15:59, Joachim Rang wrote: >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 I find the above numbers interesting. Here is a single-cpu Opteron 248 run (2.2ghz) on the DTS paper positions. These logs are available on my ftp box... total positions searched.......... 24 number right...................... 24 number wrong...................... 0 percentage right.................. 100 percentage wrong.................. 0 total nodes searched.............. 15728711815 average search depth.............. 14.1 nodes per second.................. 2184528 Crafty averages about 1/1000th the Opteron clock rate for NPS. IE 2.2ghz produces 2.2M nodes per second. Either somehow I have gotten way faster than Fritz, which seems unlikely, or the 64 bit opteron likes Crafty much better than a 32 bit application...
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.