Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:22:55 07/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 1999 at 16:52:12, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On July 08, 1999 at 15:06:50, KarinsDad wrote: > >>If you cannot afford the big Intel chips, then the K6-3 is probably a better buy >>than a PII. Even if you cannot get your code size under 298K (I am not sure how >>much of the L1 cache is dedicated to code on the AMD, probably 32K), the extra >>200-225 Mhz on the L2 cache puts the AMD slightly faster than the same speed PII >>or PIII for chess programs (but the 500 PIII seems to outperform the 450 K6-3 >>even with the faster L2 cache in almost all of the tests that I have seen, but >>you have to pay to get the slight performance improvement). >> >>KarinsDad :) > >try p3/500 with cstal win95 and tell me about the results. >THEN we can discuss. >cstal is huge. >lots of code to differenciate which moves to choose. I wasn't responding specifically for cstal. But put it on a PIII Xeon where the cache is not half speed (and pay $1000 for the 512K cache version of the CPU). Also, see if you can get a version of cstal compiled for the PIII instruction set. Sometimes, it's easier to be convinced that one system is better than another for a given application just due to the fact that the application is not taking advantage of the better system's capabilities. BTW, what are your results for cstal for different systems. I am currently thinking of upgrading my system. I was thinking of PIII 450, but am still undecided. Since the program I am writing will also have a large amount of code (i.e. evaluation), I may be swayed to a different system. KarinsDad :)
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.