Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 12:51:37 01/16/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2006 at 15:30:15, Ingo Bauer wrote: >On January 16, 2006 at 15:24:39, Andreas Guettinger wrote: > >>On January 16, 2006 at 14:27:57, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On January 16, 2006 at 14:02:04, George Sobala wrote: >>> >>>>On ICC right now: >>>> >>>>Rybka 1.01 Beta 10d 32-bit on a (mere) Pentium M 1.6GHz (Fishlet) >>>>v >>>>Deep Shredder on an Apple Quad 4x2.5GHz (Redshift) >>> >>>Could you give an idea as to what this might be equivalent to for a WinBox? In >>>other words, would this be as fast as Deep Shredder running on an Athlon 4800+X2 >>>and the like? Faster? Slower? >>> >>> Albert >>> >> >>By calculation it would be equal to 7.5 Ghz of a Athlon64 or Opteron box (for >>Chess), because the 2.5 Ghz PowerPC G5 is 0.75 times as fast as a Athlon64 3400 >>2.4 Ghz. >>I don't know what the Ghz of a Athlon 4800. It would be similar as 1 x 7.5 Ghz, >>2x 3.75 or quad 1.9 Ghz for multithreading. > >I operated Shredder at the IPCCC in Paderborn on a Quad Mac with 2.5 GHz. We >calculated that it is as fast as an Quad Opteron at 2.5 GHz (+/- 10%). A single >G5 is slower than a single Opteron (for chess!) but the speedup for 4 CPUs seems >to be better. The overall result is about equal. > >Btw: Seeing it that way a quad Mac is one of the cheapest available systems with >that much "chess calculating power"! > >Bye >Ingo Interesting. I only compared the NPS of single process engines and didn't take in account the speedup. Actually I would have thought the difference would be even bigger if a Intel compiler and optimizations would be used for the Athlon/Opteron. Maybe the 2 Gb of L2 Cache per CPU (4 Gb total) that is shared for 2 cores each makes a difference. If somebody has a Athlon 4800 X2 with Deep Shredder and a testposition we could make a comparision. regards Andy
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.