Author: Mark Young
Date: 11:28:49 07/03/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2005 at 07:50:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. Thanks you Vincent for the information. If Mhz to Mhz, dual cores are as fast or close to it as two opteron chips. I will be buying the dual core cpu's. Much better price. :)
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.