Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 15:44:52 01/16/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2006 at 17:46:34, Sandro Necchi wrote: >I got the approval so I sent you what you asked. > >Check your e-mail box. > >Ciao >Sandro Why would Shredder's speed on different platforms be top secret? Certainly this "within 10% of a Quad Opteron 2.4GHz on a Quad G5 2.5GHz Mac" is not correct. I've already received the start position analysis from George Sobala who owns a Quad G5 2.5GHz Mac and Deep Shredder 9.11 using 1 thread, 2 threads and 4 threads. The SMP efficiency was excellent, but it was nothing to faint over and certainly not more efficient than the Opteron's capabilities. With its bidirectional hypertransport bus and super low latency it has incredible SMP efficiency potential. What does the G5 have to match (or excel) this? I don't personally own 64-bit Shredder for the PC, but the native CB Deep Shredder 9 on my machine (AMD Athlon X2 @ 2.85GHz per a core) is within 20% of George's Quad Mac. Again, that is without 64-bit (which one would assume from CEGT's tests and other sources that 64-bit would bridge the 20% speed gap -- or come close...) So unless something "unexplainable" is happening from 2 threads to 4 threads on the AMDs, a Quad Opteron 2.4GHz using Deep Shredder 9.12 should be 27-31% faster than the Quad G5 2.5GHz Mac. I will have _EXACT_ numbers as soon as an associate of mine returns the eval/analysis I asked for from his Quad Opteron system. Regards, -elc.
This page took 0.01 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.