Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:56:54 08/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 2005 at 11:42:41, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >On August 15, 2005 at 11:34:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 15, 2005 at 11:27:53, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >> >>>You can safely assume that the following rule is valid: >>> >>>P4 x .6 = AMD64 Ghz >>> >>>examples: P4 @ 3 Ghz = AMD64 @ 1.8 Ghz, or P4 @ 2.4 Ghz = AMD64 @ 1.44 Ghz >>> >>>Regarding the 2.4 Ghz AMD64 that you plan to buy, it would turn out that only a >>>(non-existant as yet) P4 running at 4 Ghz would meet the equation. >>> >>>Simply put, an AMD64 2.4 Ghz is as fast for chess as a P4 @ 4Ghz, and quite >>>often it is as fast as a dual Xeon 2.4 (most notably running Shredder 9). >>> >>>All this holds true for 32 bit systems, but a 64 bit OS would lead to Hyatt's >>>idea that a single AMD64 would be almost twice as fast as a 2.8 dual Xeon. >>> >>> >>>I hope that this detailed information will help you to decide which way to go. >>> >>>Djordje >> >>Your comparison is slightly broken. AMD = 64 bits, PIV is not. In the case of >>Crafty, this changes things so that a 2.2ghz opteron is over 2.1x faster than a >>2.8ghz PIV xeon (with 1mb L2 to boot on the intel)). > > > >Me no understand :-(( I just said that *quote* ...[your idea is] that a single >AMD64 would be almost twice as fast a 2.8 dual Xeon [on a 64 bit OS]. So, what >is it exactly that you want to say? I said 'almost twice' and you quoted 2.1x >faster... > >I may be missing something though. > >Djordje Sorry, I was really responding to your p4 * .6. For Crafty that .6 is actually less than .5...
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.