The board decided itself to put 1.4V into the CPU but to my surprise it only reached 80C .... It seems I might better overclocks if I drop the CPU cache speed down a lot. TBH though I doubt I will ever get it chess engine stable at 5Ghz even when I cool it sub zero but never say never
I changed my main drive to a Samsung 970 EVO PLUS and have all my chess stuff now on the Samsung 960 PRO ... I still have an old PCi OCZ Revo 3x2 and a OCZ Vertex SSD connected for backups etc
By running a single position solving test say 100 times and averaging the time to solve would indicate the engine's degree of variability when run with more than one thread together with average solving time. It may highlight the value of overclocking could be lost to a certain degree when there is no certainty the engine would find the correct move much faster for any given run. kN/s as a measure can look impressive but does not truly reflect an engine's performance.
I will try to find a few positions and run the tests you ask ..... ATM I am try to see what is the lowest CPU voltage I can run an overclock at. With hyperthreading on CPU temps are approx 8c higher with 1.25V .... Ambient temps are not friendly and will only get worse as the summer approaches
> Ambient temps are not friendly and will only get worse as the summer approaches
That was the issue I found running a dual Xeon machine in a thermally efficient house! Windows open - heat out - bugs in! Late last year I settled on a 65 watt i7-8700 when flat out its heat contribution seems minimal but of course the time to solve is down but not using it for any competitive chess so no problem. Just 65 watts versus 300 watts per hour of the dual Xeon for the CPUs when the economics of it for 24 hour running doesn't make sense. Time is the issue but it does come at a cost.
I've attached my file on the measurements and the database with the position x100 I used with Stockfish 9 run in Chessbase GUI 14 64 bit. Syzygy bases need to be disabled and I used just 1 Gb hash because was more interested in the relative CPU performance. It was very enlightening!
Thanks for the links. I'll have a closer look at that software. Looks interesting.
I suspect the results reflect what I found. The 29% kN/s gain obtained on the dual Xeon machine looked about right for the 30% potential gain of HT-on to HT-off but for chess engines the important measurement is time to solve that on my machines, including the older quads, does not reflect the kN/s difference but instead a much narrower difference, 8.6% for the dual Xeon, confirming the time gain is not reflective of the kN/s difference that tends to flatter to deceive.
The inherent multi-thread variability of the engine is the culprit of the solve time variations and the averaged narrower speed by time measurement differential reflects the overhead cost of hyper-threading. The multi-thread variability is why the test must be run so many times when the more runs gives a more accurate measure of the dfference.
It will be interesting though to see the final results achieved with CPU performance optimised.
Thanks for tests updates. The only engine I have that gives a consistent score with multithreads is Deep Junior 10 but that was because it did not use all of the threads all of the time. All other engines can give quite a wide band of solving time when in multithread mode dependant on the position and the amount of hash allocated.
Single thread mode should be deterministic and therefore should give very close solving times each run when small variations will be down to background tasks. It also gives the reference timing to measure the speed gain when additional threads are used. However, once more than one thread is used the engine becomes non-deterministic and solving times will vary, sometimes quite wildly that is why many runs have to be carried out and sufficient time overhead to ensure a solve failure is not recorded.
In the last two tests shown, DF13 recorded just 5% speed gain for 16 to 8 threads based on the 25 results shown. That may be as good as it gets for Fritz. For Stockfish 9 I measured an 8.62% speed gain going from 16 cores to 32 threads as opposed to the 29.14% kN/s speed increase confirming kN/s is an incorrect measure.
not as powerful but a lot less expensive
I did hear that Intels 10nm processors are better than AMDs 7nm but Intel
`bless em`are having lots of problems but it could all be fake news ....
One of the main reasons I went for my latest setup is that I heard some time ago that the top end X570 motherboards were going to cost around $1000 but they do come with PCi 4 ...... I do have a soft spot for AMD and one of my first computer builds I remember sub zeroing it with a vapochill unit and having fun in the chessbase engine room ahhhh those were the days when we all had single core machines etc
You are talking of these ?
(or single core)but it is the price that will be interesting because if it out performs say the 7980XE and costs $500 then that is a massive kick in the gonads for Intel although Intel are mainly concerned with servers and laptops and it may be 2021 before they strike back on the desktop front but that is only what I have read and listened to on various youtube channels and could easily be FAKE news
Will these be good ?
Intels main money maker is the server market in which maybe they have a 90% share and then the laptop market and they have between approx 75-80% of the market. These days the desktop supporters come 3rd in Intels thoughts. To get the big companies to switch to AMD which will cost a lot of money will be a difficult task but lets wish them luck even if it is only because a competitive market usually means better prices for us the public.
The evil empire Intel have vastly deeper pockets than AMD and although it maybe 2021 before they strike back we know they will so fingers crossed AMD can keep up with Intel in the future this time as new CPUs are brought out unlike sadly before getting left behind
>It would be nice to see AMD kick Intel in the gonads
They certainly have, and continue to do so!
Although it seems Intel fanboyish, my personal hypothesis is that right now Intel is investing heavily in getting away from the sinking ship of silicon while AMD is not, so AMD is able to surge ahead for the time being, but they won't be first to make it to the new post-silicon world.
It would be nice to see AMD kick Intel in the gonads
It seems from all the news they already have and its EPYC
have 24GB installed now and the max is 64GB. Realistically 24GB is plenty for Windows 10.
>I did hear that Intels 10nm processors..but Intel are having lots of problems..
They resolved the issues but only have mobile SKUs at the moment :-/
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill