Author: Zappa
Date: 14:19:05 12/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2005 at 15:51:15, enrico carrisco wrote: >On December 27, 2005 at 15:47:16, Zappa wrote: > >>On December 27, 2005 at 15:23:30, enrico carrisco wrote: >> >>>On December 27, 2005 at 15:19:00, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >>> >>>>On December 27, 2005 at 15:14:33, enrico carrisco wrote: >>>> >>>>>I didn't see this posted yet but I also didn't look extensively. :) >>>>> >>>> >>>>I see the plays on playchess.com! :-) >>> >>>Well, that speaks worlds to me... Inconsistent server results with varied >>>speeds of hardware, time controls and openings vs. scientific testing with >>>controlled conditions. And you prefer to base your opinions on the former. >>> >>>Well, I guess that about sums it up. >>> >>>-elc. >> >>For what its worth, Enrico, I doubt Eduard's posts have much of an effect on >>Hiarcs' reputation or sales. The number of people that read CCC is too small >>for that. >> >>anthony > >No, of course Anthony. I agree with your "CCC geek-sqaud" analogy, but it >doesn't remove the irritation factor of such posts... > >Good luck in Paderborn -- I'm excited to see those final scaling figures when >everything calms down. Are you still at 128 CPUs like your initial estimate? > >Regards, > >-elc. Sadly I haven't had enough time to really test, but it seems like its scaling in the area of 65-75%. This is OK but not great. The biggest thing that I don't understand is the single CPU performance. On my quad right now I get 600+ knps, while on the I2 I get 250. Granted the clock rate is higher but still, I should be getting at least 350-400 single CPU . . . anthony
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.