Thanks! That one CPU comparison is very helpful. So, indeed, there is a lot more to worry about these days than simple clock speed. Has anybody else done similar comparisons? :)

P.S. I'll almost surely pass on overclocking, but I had heard rumors that current CPUs were running well under speed to reduce heat. Still, over 5 GHz is pretty impressive!

-Richard

Sylvain Gelly wrote:
So, what should I be looking for in a
processor if I want to get the most out of my single threaded UCT
program?
The best way is to find a friend with exactly the processor you want
and try your program on it... The second best is see benchmarks, and
find which benchmark is relevant to your program. Then, buy the
processor with the highest value on this benchmark :-).


Perhaps the most interesting question for me is: How will a Core2 (duo?)
2.33 GHz compare with my existing P4 3.2 GHz? In any case I guess I will
have to retool the program to be multi-threaded to take advantage of the
dual core. Should I also be worrying about converting to 64-bit?

This one:
processor       : 1
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 15
model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6700  @ 2.66GHz
stepping        : 6
cpu MHz         : 2660.110
cache size      : 4096 KB

is the fastest processor for MoGo I have access to. Each processor
(there are 2), is 1.5 time the speed of my P4 3.4Ghz (already 1.2
faster than other P4 3.4Ghz).

BTW, someone managed to overclock this processor to 5.182 Ghz !!!
(http://www.hardware.fr/myocdb.com/processeur364.html).
And 3.750 Ghz seems pretty easy to get (without very special cooling
material, at a price of less than 30 euros).

Hope that helps for your choice :-).

Sylvain
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Reply via email to