Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 05:02:16 06/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2004 at 16:30:15, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On June 21, 2004 at 12:51:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >Crafty is faster than Fritz on 32 bit. >For example: > >[D] 1r5r/3b1pk1/p2p1np1/p1qPp3/2N1PbP1/2P2PN1/1PB1Q1K1/R3R3 b - - 0 1 > >Crafty 19.12 (Dann Corbit) : 1243 kN/s >Fritz 8.026 : 1035 kN/s >Fritz 5.32 : 1976 kN/s > >Athlon XP 2.2Ghz,64 MB hash after 30 sec search. > >Michael I wouldn't generalise. Crafty 19.13 (ChessBase, 4 threads) is slower than Deep Fritz 8 (4 threads), at least while analysing the given position: Crafty 19.13 1769 Kn/s Deep Fritz 8 1999 Kn/s 30 second search, infinite analysis mode, dual Xeon 2.4, 64 MB hash, Win XP Pro.
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.