Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 22:59:39 07/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 1999 at 00:58:45, Gregor Overney wrote: >On July 10, 1999 at 01:50:04, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On July 10, 1999 at 01:20:05, Gregor Overney wrote: >> >>[snip] >>> >>>Since your are still undecided but intend to write your own Chess code, consider >>>this: >>> >>>Get a 21264 Alpha based system with 4 or 8 MBytes of L2. Then you get 64K/64K >>>for L1 and plenty for L2. It's a good improvement compared to the 21164 with >>>8K/8K for L1, and 96K for L2, and 2 to 8 MBytes for L3. Digital has recognized >>>that three level staged caching creates too much overhead. I am afraid that the >>>AMD will suffer exactly under the same problem. An even better example of >>>efficiency is the PA-8500. It only has L1 cache 1M/0.5M (no L2, no L3). >>> >>>But even the old 21164 at 600 MHz is a solid chip for 64-bit computing. Systems >>>are available for 2 to 3 k$. >>> >>>Gregor >> >>Thanks, but no thanks. I work with Alphas (and Intels) every day and I have >>found the Alphas to be dogs. Now this is probably not true for a processor heavy >>program like a chess program and the higher end systems with 21264s, but I >>consider the Alpha motherboards (at least for the EV4s and earlier) to be vastly >>inferior (so talking to every other system component is dog slow). >> >>And, I am not buying a full blown system, but just the ATX case, motherboard, >>memory, and chip. Ever since Karin came along, an extra $2 to $3 K just doesn't >>seem to be in the picture anymore. :) >> >>Thanks for the suggestion though. >> >>KarinDad :) > >I understand your point of view. The extra 2 to 3 k$ that are required for an >Alpha can be difficult to justify. > >Following your experience, I never found the Alpha (or its components) to be >"dog slow" when compared to an Intel-based system. > >I am also running my code on PA-RISC's, ALPHA, and Intel systems. My preference >goes with the Alpha and Linux. But that's based on high performance computing >with lots of CPU intensive code. > >Chess programs are a relaxing side effort. Most of the time, I am running >simulations that need lots of floating point calculations (quantum computing, >LDA, molecular dynamics, simulators dealing with classical fields for MS). > >With regard to Chess, I found that even an "older" 21164/500 is doing a fine job >when used to run brute-force searches that "only" require ints. I prefer Linux >to NT. But that's just my personal opinion. > >I wish you luck in choosing the best system for your needs. > >Have fun. > >Gregor Based on my experience, 21164a/533 is roughly equivalent to PII/400. And Alpha is Digital Alpha, with a lot of L2 cache. Of course my code didn't use floating point. Eugene
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.