Author: Per Jørgensen
Date: 05:35:09 11/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2005 at 06:04:34, Greg Simpson wrote: >Tablebase access can easily saturate the disk IO, so having two engines using >them at once could be a problem. You could buy a small second hard disk and >store a copy of the tablebases there and avoid this problem by directing one >engine to use the tablebases on the main disk and the other the tablebases on >the secondary disk. > >Other than tablebases, there should be some slow down from memory bus contention >when two engines are running, mostly from hash table access I guess (hard to >cache). I don't think think this would be a big issue for the X2 processors, >but like you I would be interested if anyone could provide some real data. > >If you don't want to run ponder on you could get a bigger benefit from the dual >core system by running two matches at once. > >I personally would favor even an X2 3800 system over the 4000 for chess. Hi Greg! Thanks for your comments. The idea to have a second hard disk is a very good one. Then you can make 2 different paths to the TB's which is stored on both hard disks. My only question then is how to tell the engine which path it should use? I play with the Shredder 9 surface and when you pick out an engine to participate in an tournament then you choose to set the TB's on or off. But in this window you specify which path it should use but I am sure that there is another way of telling the engine? Ofcourse it is great to be able to play two matches at once if choosing Poner off. I guess that the way to do that is installing let's say Shredder 9 twice? Still, although I'm convinced that buying a Dual Core CPU is a wise choice I still hope that anyone can provide some real data and compare 4000+ to for example x2 4400+. Best regards Per
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.