I'm REALLY surprised it's as much as 10x speed increase though - really?
- Core 2 vs. Pentium 4: factor 2.0
- Four cores vs. one: factor 2.5 (?)
- 64-bit vs. 32-bit: factor 1.7
End result: about 9.0
So, it isn't all that unrealistic.
/* Steinar */
>- Core 2 vs. Pentium 4: factor 2.0
Slightly more than that.
>- Four cores vs. one: factor 2.5 (?)
>- 64-bit vs. 32-bit: factor 1.7
Are you really sure ???
I never thought it's so big ...
Nah. Joker runs like sh** on a PIV because the PIV itself is a piece of sh**. :-)My core2 at 2.0ghz is twice as fast (single cpu) as my PIV xeon 2.8ghz. Actually even more factoring in the 64 bit operations. PIV was just a dog from the get-go, until they had time to get the core-2 right...
Well, I won't argue with your classification of the Pentium 4.
But it must be more than that, as I am talking of an equal-hardware situation, where the opponents are also having the handicap of a Pentium 4. And on that machine Joker could not compete with engines that perform ~300 ELO below it on my own Core 2 Duo.
>> - Four cores vs. one: factor 2.5 (?)
Maybe Zappa, certainly not the current Rybka!
> Maybe Zappa, certainly not the current Rybka!
For 2.0 beta 8, it was 2.8. Zappa seems to be about 3.5 on the CCRL list, which is consistent with the 3.7 achieved by Cray Blitz.
Multiply that by the processor speed (MHz) and the number of cores and we'd have a definative speed rating. Vempele?
> Multiply that by the processor speed (MHz) and the number of cores and we'd have a definative speed rating.
Remember to factor in scaling and 64-bit. Probably (modest) overclocking, too. And a bunch of other factors that don't matter as much.
> I suppose it's a bit hard to grasp just how badly the P4 sucks.
Indeed, with one sitting on my desk (a 2-processor machine, but the bridge sucks most of the doubling away in any case), I feel this regularly. Incidentally, do you have an opinion as to whether the POPCNT instruction with the Phenom [or Nehalem/SSE4.2] should show a measurable gain for bitboard engines?
dual core 2,2 Ghz. I know therefore well the performances of Rybka on these CPU.
Here they are:
Celeron 2,2 Ghz: Rybka 32 bit 17/30 Kn/s
Pentium 4 3Ghz HT: Rybka 32 bit 40/60 Kn/s, Rybka 64 bit 80/110 Kn/s
Core2 Duo E4500 2,2 Ghz: Rybka MP 64 bit 220/260 Kn/s
notes: - the Pentium 4 is the model 631 with 64 bit support
- speed is that measured after the opening and in the middle game. Obviously in the ends more elevated values will be had.
- values with CPU not overcloking
I like to think of it in time terms, meaning my crappy P4 would need ten hours to calculate what a Quadcore does in just one hour. That's why I can't wait to build my new system next month ($2k budget). I've used my P4 for 4 years now, so this is going to be a huge upgrade for me in all areas of computing.
It needs to be based on ONE core at the SAME clock speed. After that you can factor in cores and clock speed differences and 64bit etc. The highest it could possibly be is 3 although 2 sounds about right, and even that surprises me
> It needs to be based on ONE core at the SAME clock speed.
Why? The OP was clearly comparing a quad against a single processor. He specified the clock speeds: 3.2 vs 3. Definitely 64-bit - otherwise it'd be implausible.
You seem to have mixed the subthreads.
Obviously the end result is higher than 2 but to get a definative list of processor speeds it would be far more helpful to do it the way I suggested so ALL core 2 architecture (for example) could be compaired quickly: quads, duals, and single threaded apps.
>yes make sure ponder is off!
>I'm REALLY surprised it's as much as 10x speed increase though - really?
No mention of a coefficient there as far as I can see. Nor in the 2 posts above it.
What can I do with these northmen ?
You have Rybka 3.2 and me (poor Silvian :)) only 2.3.2 a !
Hello Vas, are you there ! I want to buy this new version !
Give me a link- please !
Thank you !
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill