• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Athlon64 not as powerful as I thought

J

joe2004

Senior member
I play online chess with Pentium 2.4C at 3.2 GHz, Barton 2500 at 2.3 GHz and Athlon64 3200+ at 2.1 GHz. My Barton is as good if not better than Athlon84 while my Pentium has the highest rating though not much more. I am using Crafty 19.03 engine which utilizes CPU 100% during the game.
I was expecting much better results with Athlon64 and this thing is certainly a disappointment to me. Perhaps I should jack it up to 2.2 GHz only after paying $400+ I am not all that excited about burning it out fast.
 
uhm .. im no Crafty 19.03 engine expert. But i don't think you can base a CPU's performce on an Online Game Engine for Chess.
 
What exactly didn't impress you about it, might I ask? I know nothing of this Crafty 19.03 engine you speak of...I am curious about this all.
 
Yeah, I know it is not just the chess. Only I expected Athlon64 to be a big killer for online chess but it turns out it is rather weak. I got rating like 2400-2500 and I even lost a game to 2300 machine. Sad.
 
Originally posted by: joe2004
Yeah, I know it is not just the chess. Only I expected Athlon64 to be a big killer for online chess but it turns out it is rather weak. I got rating like 2400-2500 and I even lost a game to 2300 machine. Sad.
Click to expand...

so you get points based how strong your CPU is? Are you saying you lost because of the AMD64?

Im totally lost.
 
I think I understand. Your computers play chess against one another, and the most powerful one wins.... Somehow. I don't see how anyone could write a program involving ALL the possible moves in chess that would make this test anywhere CLOSE to accurate.
 
When you play long enough you would see what the power of your CPU is, they are all using more or less the same engine. Some have openings or ending databases but most don't.
 
Crafty is part of the SPEC_int2000 benchmark suite. A quick glance shows these results:

[*]Athlon FX, 2.2GHz, WinXP, ICC 7.0: 1505
[*]Athlon 64 2GHz, WinXP, ICC 7.0: 1370
[*]Athlon XP 2.2GHz, WinXP, ICC 7.0: 1324
[*]Pentium 4 3.2GHz, WinXP, ICC 7.1: 1209

[*]Opteron 1.8GHz, SuSE, GCC 3.3 (64-bit):1562
[*]Opteron 1.8GHz, SuSE, GCC 3.3 (32-bit):1109

It seems that your experience disagrees with this however. Which is strange because here AMD wins when using Intel compilers in SPEC even! Usually it's the opposite. The Intel SPEC results tend to exxagerate most real world app performance somewhat because few if any apps are compiled with the Intel compiler.

BTW, I added the Opteron Linux results for both 64-bit and 32-bit mode. The 64-bit version of Crafty is 40% faster! So if that version of crafty you use ever become availible in 64-bit mode, your A64 will blow everything else away.
 
andreasl, you are right. Currently I am using Windows 2000 and I am about to install Mandrake v9.2 RC1 which is 64-bit. Then I'll check if it is any better.
I guess it depends on setup as well, I thought that Athlon64 will give me an edge but ...
 
Well, I just get the binary since this is Windows 2000. I downloaded the whole source pack few times but never bother to compile.
Funny thing is that in SuperPi Athlon64 is easily better than my Pentium and that would be a similar type of intensive program.
 
Originally posted by: joe2004
Well, I just get the binary since this is Windows 2000. I downloaded the whole source pack few times but never bother to compile.
Funny thing is that in SuperPi Athlon64 is easily better than my Pentium and that would be a similar type of intensive program.
Click to expand...

Well just because it's a CPU intensive program doesn't mean it's a simular type. Anyway you could try to compile it with GCC 3.3 64-bit in Linux and see what result you get. Intel also has their compiler availible for Linux but I am not sure whether it's free or not, and it's of course only 32-bit. If you can, try it out as well.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top