Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:50:05 07/03/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2005 at 09:56:50, Mark Young wrote: >On July 01, 2005 at 22:27:02, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On July 01, 2005 at 21:38:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>... >>> >>>My point was that Hydra is most _certainly_ not some new level of computer chess >>>as stated by Adams. I wouldn't argue against it being the best computer chess >>>entity at the moment. But it is absolutely _not_ head and shoulders above >>>others. The advantage I have is that I have a lot of experience with parallel >>>and distributed search, and know the losses that a distributed search entails >>>compared to a pure SMP approach. And even if they are currently reaching 200M >>>nodes per second, which I somehow doubt given the FPGA numbers they have >>>published in the past, that is not _that_ much faster than other readily >>>available hardware. I've seen numbers well beyond 20M for Crafty on a quad >>>dual-core opteron, for example. I've seen numbers more than double that on >>>other machines I can't really mention at the moment. So they are not _that_ far >>>beyond today's programs. Clearly Adam's comments are based on some other >>>reality or understanding that is not based on factual analysis. >> >>Today you can buy Itanium2 64-CPU system at >>http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/integrity/superdome_high_end/ >> >>Last time I measured Crafty run at ~1.5Mnps on one Itanium2 CPU. So with some >>additional work (avoid cache conflicts, maybe introduce smaller local hash to be >>probed at the last ply or two) Crafty can hit ~100Mnps on such beast. >> >>For less than $40k you can buy reasonable configured 8 sockets / 16 cores >>Opteron system. For example take a look at >>http://www.pcsforeveryone.com/product_info.php?cPath=1967&products_id=14101&customize=true >> >>Crafty should run at ~30-35Mnps on such system. >> >>Both those systems are NUMA, not clusters, so search should be more efficient. >> >>Thanks, >>Eugene > >I have a question. What is better, and by how much. > >A AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core ... Or a Dual Opteron system? My quess would be the >dual opteron would be a bit faster, but the dual-core would be cheaper. > >What is the best bang for the buck? As you can see for Diep it hardly matters in speed when using the same clocked processor. However dual core is there to 2.2Ghz and dual single core is there till 2.6Ghz. So dual 2.6ghz is faster than dual core 2.2Ghz opteron. Dual core A64 i didn't checkout highest clocked ones yet. If that's 2.6ghz too, then it's equally fast. Obviously buying a system with 1 processor is always cheaper than a system with 2 processors.
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.