Author: Wilhelm Hudetz
Date: 08:52:23 11/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2005 at 09:59:05, Per Jørgensen wrote: >Hi Wilhelm! HI Per! > >Thanks for your results. They are very interesting. The reason I'm writing you >is that I am considering to buy an AMD Dual Core CPU (if you want to you can >check what I wrote earlier today under the Subject "Which CPU should I buy?"). I >can see that you are testing with an AMD Dual Core and I would be delighted if >you would tell about your experience with this CPU :-) Here are my questions: > >1) What's your general opinion of your CPU? Are you satisfied? best CPU I ever had! Makes Windows faster then ever when using standard-programs (Winword, Excel, Corel...)because the second cpu makes background tasks. By chess, as you say, you can use ponder on, what you give more precision in test-series. And at least, I can run it at 2500mhz without any problem, but the differenz to 2300mhz is small, so I let it there (49°C by eng-engmatch with ponder on after 2 weeks permanent run). > >2) I can see you are testing with Pondern OFF. Why? You have two cores in your >CPU and therefore you should be able to test with permanent brain ON. If you read, the goal of this tournament was, how much can the Deep-programs (using two Cpu´s)benefit from dual-power against the single one´s. So if the Deep-versions use 2cpu you can not use ponder on, therefor you need 3cpu´s :-) > >3) I have another question concerning the AMD Dual Core CPU: Let's assume that I >am having two engines (and not Deep-Versions!) playing against each other. Does >it then make a difference for each engine if I am playing Pondern ON or OFF >concerning the CPU Power?? I would say no because I'd guess that each engine is >using one Core (again under the condition that it is not a Deep Version) and >this is independent of Pondern ON/OFF. > >In order to make a detailed answer on question 3 it would be very Great if you >would do the following test (I know that not only me but many Computerchessfans >would be very interested in knowing the result of this test): > >Let's do the test with Shredder 9 and Fritz 9. Pick out a random position from >the middlegame. We start with the Pondern OFF option. The time level doesn't >matter a lot but choose something like 10 min. for the whole game. Now, start >the game from this middlegameposition and observe the average number of >positions the two engines are doing when they are thinking. It's hard to this >precisely but it's not important. Then write down these average numbers after a >couple of moves (just approximately, maybe 600.000 for Shredder 9 and more than >a million for Fritz 9). Now, repeat the experiment with Pondern ON. How are the >average numbers now? Are they approximately the same or are they lower? Exactly >this question I find very, very interesting and important. I will be very, very >delighted if you would do this small test and write me the results here in this >Forum :-) That is simple, the number of positions is only higher if there is a ponder-hit. If the program ponders the false move it must also begin from 0pos. :-) > >Best regards and a very nice weekend for you > >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.