Chess2u
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Chess2uLog in

High End CPUs - Updated

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
Dreaming of Intel Core i7-3970X @ 3.50GHz. exclaim 

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
High End CPUs - Updated 1st of September 2013
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
Hi,

There are IPC improvements on Haswell architecture compared to Ivy Ivy to Sandy, each by 5-15%.

My 4670k is a 4th generation Haswell Z87 platform. I saw no value for chess in getting 4770k as hyperthreading isn't that great in chess. My processor is currently overclocked to 4.6ghz with a 4.1ghz uncore. Starting with a new system I recommend Haswell even though the performance improvements are small in Haswell compared to Sandy when both are overclocked. Smaller beats nothing.

The AMD system would be nice for somebody looking for a small, APU gaming machine with its superior integrated graphics but for a chess enthusiast graphics don't bring anything to the table. What it comes down to is whether the extra, less powerful cores of the 8350 defeats a well-placed Haswell counterpart. From my experience when both are overclocked, Haswell will win most benchmarks. It will win all less threaded benchmarks, and even in heavily threaded it's a toss-up at best.

I don't see the point in comparing a stock 8350 to a stock Sandy. We're in the Haswell age. I still don't see a point with comparing stock CPUs either way. We all know the frequency given to us from Intel on 2500k was complete and utter BS, it could run way higher. There is no way I'm running 3.8ghz (turbo on 4670k) instead of 4.6ghz.

What we're left with are the incoming Ivy-Bridge-Es, that will trample on Haswell and completely make fun of 8350 in chess. Then again it was meant to be a higher end part from start to finish.

You guys understand that the difference between 2500k and 2600k is primarily hyperthreading, yes? Once overclocked to my knowledge all of the slight gains of 2600k and IIRC 2700k evaporate. Quit wasting you cash if you're using Houdini as your primary engine, Robert Houdart himself warned against hyperthreading for his engines. I'd be cautious using it for other engines as just having a higher kilo-nodes per second rate doesn't mean a higher elo is achieved. Correct me if I'm wrong: The major difference between the 2700k and 2500k? Hyperthreading. The highest clock speed means NOTHING if you overclock. You're falling for advertising. One thing I dislike about using CPUbenchmark is it most likely runs hyperthreading optimized workloads. In chess that's not nessesarily the case. For example, my 4670k scores 9.4% SLOWER than stock 3770k despite the fact I overclocked it. This is most likely and only makes sense if the hyperthreading of the 3770k made it get a higher score. But hyperthreading doesn't make every task faster.

The list shows 4670k having a CPU mark of: 7,567 My CPU score overclocked is 9454. If we're going to go by this metric, a 4770k will blow the pants off of 8350 because with hyperthreading the score will be OP once you overclock. But that OP-ness is useless to me, I want better chess performance, not encoding performance. For kicks I found the 4770k score at stock: 10,138. That's how much hyper-threading matters in this benchmark. So the results are misleading. I don't want anybody to waste their money.

But then again a single-threaded benchmark doesn't give the whole picture either.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
The above favors 4670k by a wide margin but chess isn't single-threaded.
--
Hunter the amount of ram depends on how long your analysis will likely be. Keep in mind Robert Houdart's formula for figuring out how much hash should ideally be allocated:
If you know the average move time T (in seconds) and the average node speed of your hardware S (in kN/s), you can compute the optimal hash size with the formula: (T x S / 100) MB.

==
Sirs, you cannot compare across architectures in terms of ghz. A 2.4ghz Bulldozer (AMD) vs a 2.4ghz sandy vs a 2.4ghz Haswell, you're asking for disaster if that's how you measure performance.

You are in luck, people.
I have a friend who owns a 8350 by AMD.
I will make sure I test the speed with Houdini 3 on his rig sometime in the future. I'll do my best to fill you guys in. I will run tests on Houdini 3, Rybka 4, Stockfish 4 and record the settings/speed and compare it to my rig.

==

Not sure if I should establish some street cred here. The link below is my Haswell overclocking guide, it has achieve close to 2000 replies now. Just so you don't think I'm talking out my butt, lol. razz 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1411077/haswell-overclocking-thread-with-statistics

==
Every single computer enthusiast or serious computer chess enthusiast that can afford modern-day hardware ought to overclock their CPU. So to me this entire chart is useless on top of useless. If you really want to get serious, go get Ivy Bridge E, slated to come out soon. That's what the big kids are going to use and having one makes you cool. :sm25:If you get it you are morally and contractually obligated to overclock it or I will find you at night and steal your kitten. evil

Now who in this forum possesses a machine with dual Xeons? cool


EDIT:
Had a little bit of fun with this one:
High End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 Untitl14

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
I'd like to make a little update too, to my post originally.

From benchmarks and what I've seen so far, Ivy-Bridge E for the most part will not beat a 4670k/4770k in performance for tasks that use a few threads. But chess uses many, many cores, so if you're building a pure chess machine or a machine that does a whole lot of encoding, Ivy Bridge E is still on top.

Gamers on the other hand will have a better time with 4670k or 4770k.
Intel is kicking us in the groin pretty hard knowing it has control of the CPU market at this area by giving us a CPU architecture from 2 years ago today competeing with their Haswell CPUs. It is what it is.

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
Dark_wizzie wrote:
Hi,

There are IPC improvements on Haswell architecture compared to Ivy Ivy to Sandy, each by 5-15%.

My 4670k is a 4th generation Haswell Z87 platform. I saw no value for chess in getting 4770k as hyperthreading isn't that great in chess. My processor is currently overclocked to 4.6ghz with a 4.1ghz uncore. Starting with a new system I recommend Haswell even though the performance improvements are small in Haswell compared to Sandy when both are overclocked. Smaller beats nothing.

The AMD system would be nice for somebody looking for a small, APU gaming machine with its superior integrated graphics but for a chess enthusiast graphics don't bring anything to the table. What it comes down to is whether the extra, less powerful cores of the 8350 defeats a well-placed Haswell counterpart. From my experience when both are overclocked, Haswell will win most benchmarks. It will win all less threaded benchmarks, and even in heavily threaded it's a toss-up at best.

I don't see the point in comparing a stock 8350 to a stock Sandy. We're in the Haswell age. I still don't see a point with comparing stock CPUs either way. We all know the frequency given to us from Intel on 2500k was complete and utter BS, it could run way higher. There is no way I'm running 3.8ghz (turbo on 4670k) instead of 4.6ghz.

What we're left with are the incoming Ivy-Bridge-Es, that will trample on Haswell and completely make fun of 8350 in chess. Then again it was meant to be a higher end part from start to finish.

You guys understand that the difference between 2500k and 2600k is primarily hyperthreading, yes? Once overclocked to my knowledge all of the slight gains of 2600k and IIRC 2700k evaporate. Quit wasting you cash if you're using Houdini as your primary engine, Robert Houdart himself warned against hyperthreading for his engines. I'd be cautious using it for other engines as just having a higher kilo-nodes per second rate doesn't mean a higher elo is achieved. Correct me if I'm wrong: The major difference between the 2700k and 2500k? Hyperthreading. The highest clock speed means NOTHING if you overclock. You're falling for advertising. One thing I dislike about using CPUbenchmark is it most likely runs hyperthreading optimized workloads. In chess that's not nessesarily the case. For example, my 4670k scores 9.4% SLOWER than stock 3770k despite the fact I overclocked it. This is most likely and only makes sense if the hyperthreading of the 3770k made it get a higher score. But hyperthreading doesn't make every task faster.

The list shows 4670k having a CPU mark of: 7,567 My CPU score overclocked is 9454. If we're going to go by this metric, a 4770k will blow the pants off of 8350 because with hyperthreading the score will be OP once you overclock. But that OP-ness is useless to me, I want better chess performance, not encoding performance. For kicks I found the 4770k score at stock: 10,138. That's how much hyper-threading matters in this benchmark. So the results are misleading. I don't want anybody to waste their money.

But then again a single-threaded benchmark doesn't give the whole picture either.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
The above favors 4670k by a wide margin but chess isn't single-threaded.
--
Hunter the amount of ram depends on how long your analysis will likely be. Keep in mind Robert Houdart's formula for figuring out how much hash should ideally be allocated:
If you know the average move time T (in seconds) and the average node speed of your hardware S (in kN/s), you can compute the optimal hash size with the formula: (T x S / 100) MB.

==
Sirs, you cannot compare across architectures in terms of ghz. A 2.4ghz Bulldozer (AMD) vs a 2.4ghz sandy vs a 2.4ghz Haswell, you're asking for disaster if that's how you measure performance.

You are in luck, people.
I have a friend who owns a 8350 by AMD.
I will make sure I test the speed with Houdini 3 on his rig sometime in the future. I'll do my best to fill you guys in. I will run tests on Houdini 3, Rybka 4, Stockfish 4 and record the settings/speed and compare it to my rig.

==

Not sure if I should establish some street cred here. The link below is my Haswell overclocking guide, it has achieve close to 2000 replies now. Just so you don't think I'm talking out my butt, lol. razz 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1411077/haswell-overclocking-thread-with-statistics

==
Every single computer enthusiast or serious computer chess enthusiast that can afford modern-day hardware ought to overclock their CPU. So to me this entire chart is useless on top of useless. If you really want to get serious, go get Ivy Bridge E, slated to come out soon. That's what the big kids are going to use and having one makes you cool. :sm25:If you get it you are morally and contractually obligated to overclock it or I will find you at night and steal your kitten. evil

Now who in this forum possesses a machine with dual Xeons? cool


EDIT:
Had a little bit of fun with this one:
High End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 Untitl14
What exactly are you trying to say, hyper-threading is useless or Overclocking is useless or both ?

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
@shrapnel wrote:
Dark_wizzie wrote:
Hi,

There are IPC improvements on Haswell architecture compared to Ivy Ivy to Sandy, each by 5-15%.

My 4670k is a 4th generation Haswell Z87 platform. I saw no value for chess in getting 4770k as hyperthreading isn't that great in chess. My processor is currently overclocked to 4.6ghz with a 4.1ghz uncore. Starting with a new system I recommend Haswell even though the performance improvements are small in Haswell compared to Sandy when both are overclocked. Smaller beats nothing.

The AMD system would be nice for somebody looking for a small, APU gaming machine with its superior integrated graphics but for a chess enthusiast graphics don't bring anything to the table. What it comes down to is whether the extra, less powerful cores of the 8350 defeats a well-placed Haswell counterpart. From my experience when both are overclocked, Haswell will win most benchmarks. It will win all less threaded benchmarks, and even in heavily threaded it's a toss-up at best.

I don't see the point in comparing a stock 8350 to a stock Sandy. We're in the Haswell age. I still don't see a point with comparing stock CPUs either way. We all know the frequency given to us from Intel on 2500k was complete and utter BS, it could run way higher. There is no way I'm running 3.8ghz (turbo on 4670k) instead of 4.6ghz.

What we're left with are the incoming Ivy-Bridge-Es, that will trample on Haswell and completely make fun of 8350 in chess. Then again it was meant to be a higher end part from start to finish.

You guys understand that the difference between 2500k and 2600k is primarily hyperthreading, yes? Once overclocked to my knowledge all of the slight gains of 2600k and IIRC 2700k evaporate. Quit wasting you cash if you're using Houdini as your primary engine, Robert Houdart himself warned against hyperthreading for his engines. I'd be cautious using it for other engines as just having a higher kilo-nodes per second rate doesn't mean a higher elo is achieved. Correct me if I'm wrong: The major difference between the 2700k and 2500k? Hyperthreading. The highest clock speed means NOTHING if you overclock. You're falling for advertising. One thing I dislike about using CPUbenchmark is it most likely runs hyperthreading optimized workloads. In chess that's not nessesarily the case. For example, my 4670k scores 9.4% SLOWER than stock 3770k despite the fact I overclocked it. This is most likely and only makes sense if the hyperthreading of the 3770k made it get a higher score. But hyperthreading doesn't make every task faster.

The list shows 4670k having a CPU mark of: 7,567 My CPU score overclocked is 9454. If we're going to go by this metric, a 4770k will blow the pants off of 8350 because with hyperthreading the score will be OP once you overclock. But that OP-ness is useless to me, I want better chess performance, not encoding performance. For kicks I found the 4770k score at stock: 10,138. That's how much hyper-threading matters in this benchmark. So the results are misleading. I don't want anybody to waste their money.

But then again a single-threaded benchmark doesn't give the whole picture either.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
The above favors 4670k by a wide margin but chess isn't single-threaded.
--
Hunter the amount of ram depends on how long your analysis will likely be. Keep in mind Robert Houdart's formula for figuring out how much hash should ideally be allocated:
If you know the average move time T (in seconds) and the average node speed of your hardware S (in kN/s), you can compute the optimal hash size with the formula: (T x S / 100) MB.

==
Sirs, you cannot compare across architectures in terms of ghz. A 2.4ghz Bulldozer (AMD) vs a 2.4ghz sandy vs a 2.4ghz Haswell, you're asking for disaster if that's how you measure performance.

You are in luck, people.
I have a friend who owns a 8350 by AMD.
I will make sure I test the speed with Houdini 3 on his rig sometime in the future. I'll do my best to fill you guys in. I will run tests on Houdini 3, Rybka 4, Stockfish 4 and record the settings/speed and compare it to my rig.

==

Not sure if I should establish some street cred here. The link below is my Haswell overclocking guide, it has achieve close to 2000 replies now. Just so you don't think I'm talking out my butt, lol. razz 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1411077/haswell-overclocking-thread-with-statistics

==
Every single computer enthusiast or serious computer chess enthusiast that can afford modern-day hardware ought to overclock their CPU. So to me this entire chart is useless on top of useless. If you really want to get serious, go get Ivy Bridge E, slated to come out soon. That's what the big kids are going to use and having one makes you cool. :sm25:If you get it you are morally and contractually obligated to overclock it or I will find you at night and steal your kitten. evil

Now who in this forum possesses a machine with dual Xeons? cool


EDIT:
Had a little bit of fun with this one:
High End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 Untitl14
What exactly are you trying to say, hyper-threading is useless or Overclocking is useless or both ?
Hyperthreading is useless for some engines at least. Relying on the link given to inform yourself on what CPU is faster for chess is a bad idea as long as something like Houdini doesn't use hyperthreading because the scores are inflated for CPUS with hyperthreading in that benchmark.

Overclock is very important in squeezing out the performance you want for chess. Just because a CPU has a higher ghz doesn't make it better once you overclock both. I got ~20% performance boost from overclocking. Imagine if I have two CPUS, 2500k with what, 3.2 ghz (who cares if the number is wrong, it's an example) and a 2600k with 3.3ghz. The only thing the 2600k has over the 2500k isn't the "ghz", it's hyper-threading. Yes, 2600k has 3.3, 2500k only has 3.2, but if you overclock both you will find that give basically the same speed, maybe 5.0 once both are overclocked. So you then have a 5.0ghz 2500k and a 5.0ghz 2600k. It's a waste of money to buy a 2700k because of this.

It's the same exact thing with a 4670k vs a 4770k. A 4770k is 3.5ghz with hyperthreading, 4670k is 3.4ghz. Yes, 4770k is 100mhz faster clock speed. But if you overclock, they end up having the same clock speed. If you're buying a 4770k because you think you're getting that extra 100mhz you otherwise can't get, you're being ripped off if you overclock.

So for me the question is at the $200 price point, whether the 8350 is better for chess or the 4670k is better. I will try to get some numbers in.
We know At the $300 and higher price point Ivy-Bridge E is the best already (for chess).

I hope I'm not being confusing.

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
Hi guys,
I had the pleasure of testing my friend's 8350. The 8350 is faster than the 4670k, 3570k, 2500k, etc. I'm talking about chess only. If you do gaming then 4770k will beat up the 8350 pretty badly. So it depends on which is more important to you, faster chess speed or faster gaming performance.

If you care for numbers, my friend's 8350 at stock (that means no overclock!) got 3.95 billion nodes on Houdini 3 with 12mb hash after 5 minutes at starting position. By contrast I achieved 3.98 billion nodes on Houdini 3 with the same settings, but I already overclocked my CPU. A stock 8350 will beat a stock 4670k at chess. An overclocked 8350 will beat an overclocked 4670k at chess.

Once again if you overclock and you only care about chess performance, 4770k is a waste of money compared to 4670k. But if you don't overclock (please overclock, I'm begging you), or you like to encode movies or make videos, 4770k might be a good deal. Be sure to turn hyperthreading OFF for chess though or suffer lower search depth!

I've also looked at the price of the Sandy Bridge E, Ivy Bridge E chips and those will set you back like $500.

So now I have data to back up my recommendations as I personally tested the 4670k and 8350, I read up on hyperthreading in Houdini's manual, I've seen the benchmarks for Ivy/Sandy.



So to make it very simple for you:
Under $180 you need to save your money until you have $180. thumb up 
At $180, AMD's 8350 beats Intel's 4670k ($220) at chess but loses in gaming.
At $500 ish Intel's SandyBridge E or IvyBridge E are the best for chess at the price. (The $350 Sandy Bridge E is only 4 cores! Only get the 6 cores!)
At $1000+ you can get Intel's Xeon processors which win because they have 8 cores.

You can also try to buy some of these second hand to save some money. It's not as risky especially from an Amazon seller, since CPUs are pretty hard to damage and can take a fair bit of abuse, while lasting for a long time.
If you want to build a good gaming machine 4670k is the best for the price. Even the $500 Intel CPUs can't really beat it for gaming.

I feel the benchmark link given does not fully represent chess performance on the CPUs. If chess performance is your top concern I strongly suggest following my recommendations instead of following the CPU benchmark link. For reasons why read my previous, long posts.

Extra Info:
Don't forget, your CPU needs to fit your motherboard!
Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge CPUs use z78 socket 1155 motherboards.---------------[Buy these CPUs second hand if you can!]
Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy-Bridge-E CPUs use x79 socket 2011 motherboards.-----------[Only if you really care for only chess performance! Designed to be used with 4 sticks of ram.]
Haswell CPUs use z87 1150 motherboards.---------------------------------------------[Overclocking is tricky but my guide can help! Hit me with a PM if you want to overclock Haswell, it's what I specialize in!]
AMD's 8350 uses AM3+ socket motherboards.------------------------------------------[Intel motherboards will not work!]



---
@Mixer123 wrote:
I currently have installed i5-2500K + 8GB ram.

Should i upgrade the CPU or wait for Haswell-E 8-core?

How about dual socket motherboard for allowing permanent brain as available?


2x i5-2500K + either 16/32GB ram ?

Hey Mixer,
Intel is being a n00b and only releasing IVY Bridge E this year. That's right, Haswell E is way off and Ivy-E only has 6 cores like Sandy-E. By the time Haswell-E comes out it looks like Broadwell is around the corner. So yes, you can wait like the other guy suggested but you will be waiting a very long time.

To my knowledge there exists no dual socket 1155 motherboards that you want because the CPU you have was never designed for that. To get dual-socket-goodness Xeons would be an excellent pick... if you can afford it. You can easily chalk up dual 4 core Xeons or dual eight core Xeons if you won the lottery.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by allowing pondering with two CPUs. You might want to be more specific about what you're actually doing in chess. Are you running a tournament like I guess? If so yes, pondering will work but IMO using both CPUs for normal calculations ups the ELO more. But if you want to be one of the very, very few people who is able to churn out engine tournaments with pondering on, go for it. Because CCRL, they don't do pondering, so we actually don't know the strength of engines with pondering, we can only guess.

The ram you need depends on how long you expect the engine to think per move. The longer the time per move or the analysis for one position, the more you need for best performance. Refer to Robert Houdart's equation on how to find the amount of hash optimal for a given task.

I hope I helped/

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
Permanent brain is perhaps waste of money unless you won in the lottery as you mentioned.

Curiosity & try something new. In the meantime i can purchase a null modem-cable.

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
@Mixer123 wrote:
Permanent brain is perhaps waste of money unless you won in the lottery as you mentioned.

Curiosity & try something new. In the meantime i can purchase a null modem-cable.

On the other hand, a lot of times when I use the computer chess engine it is to defeat an opponent's chess engine. Chances are we're both running the best opening book, optimal hash size, pondering, etc to get any edge we can. Although my usage scenario is a bit unique compared to many others, who use engines only for analysis of some moves instead.

But there is no ranking list that has enough games to be reliable while having pondering on.
So who knows if the pondering on Houdini is strong or not?


I wonder if anybody else is curious too. :)
If you can manage to get the match working by having two seperate computers face off though, that might be a cheaper way of testing pondering. Instead of a crazy 3000, 4000+ machine you can get away with only like, $1600 and still be able to test pondering with a new Haswell CPU on each computer. $1600 is a lot but not completely insane.

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
High End CPUs - Updated 6th of October 2013
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
High End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 Highcp10

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
High End CPUs - Updated 12th of December 2013
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
I just can't seem to keep up with this anymore. It's too expensive.

What processor would you recommend for mid range game play specific to computer chess? I would want to spend around 2000 dollars max for a new computer.

My current configuration:

Intel i7 q720
6 gigs of ram
Windows 7 Home

Thank you.

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
Intel Core i7-4960X @ 3.60GHz

Description: Socket: LGA2011, Clockspeed: 3.6 GHz, Turbo Speed: 4.0 GHz, No of Cores: 6 (2 logical cores per physical), Max TDP: 130 W
Other names: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4960X CPU @ 3.60GHz
CPU Launched: Q1 2013
CPUmark/$Price: 13.61 Overall Rank: 5
Last Price Change: $1049.99 USD (2013-09-16)


CloCk Speed 3.60GHz

Better Cpu

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
@meherrunisha wrote:
Intel Core i7-4960X @ 3.60GHz

Description:  Socket: LGA2011, Clockspeed: 3.6 GHz, Turbo Speed: 4.0 GHz, No of Cores: 6 (2 logical cores per physical), Max TDP: 130 W
Other names:  Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4960X CPU @ 3.60GHz
CPU Launched:  Q1 2013
CPUmark/$Price:  13.61     Overall Rank:  5
Last Price Change:  $1049.99 USD (2013-09-16)


CloCk Speed 3.60GHz

Better Cpu


Now if I didn't have to worry about the motherboard, RAM, video card, and hard drive I'd be set!

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
High End CPUs - Updated 27th of December 2013
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
wrong chart.... m asking if i use fx 9590 8 core processor 4.7 ghz  with 16 gb kingston 1600 hyper  ram  how much kns i will get from houdini ????  chart says nearly 10000 kns....without overclock.. i don't believe its too low... becz  i used b4 2 yrs amd 1100t processor without overclock give nealry 13000kns with houdini.... experts please answer... last 2 yrs m not playing computer chess or not makeing book... want to return... need to buy a new processor... want to buy amd please suggests.....friends where are u.... waiting for ur kind answer  clap think clap 

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
@I3rilliance wrote:
wrong chart.... m asking if i use fx 9590 8 core processor 4.7 ghz  with 16 gb kingston 1600 hyper  ram  how much kns i will get from houdini ????  chart says nearly 10000 kns....without overclock.. i don't believe its too low... becz  i used b4 2 yrs amd 1100t processor without overclock give nealry 13000kns with houdini.... experts please answer... last 2 yrs m not playing computer chess or not makeing book... want to return... need to buy a new processor... want to buy amd please suggests.....friends where are u.... waiting for ur kind answer   clap think clap 


How much are you willing to spend?

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
High End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 Dual_x10

High End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 10core10

High End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 6core10

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
vladimir.... m just asking about fx 8 core 9590... m not asking how much i want to spend for PC.... whatever in Ur chart shows that kns speed of  9590 fx 8 core  nearly 10000 and kns speed of 1100t amd  6000kns lol.... how it possible... i played in pcc nearly 2 yrs with 6 core amd 1100t without overclock i get nearly 13000kns with houdini.... what i am asking m not getting the appropriate answer... i know about those prosessor what u r posting me ... becz my lots of friends are playing there with those processor..... i want to know approx kns of fx 8 core 4.7ghz...thanks

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
@I3rilliance wrote:
vladimir.... m just asking about fx 8 core 9590... m not asking how much i want to spend for PC.... whatever in Ur chart shows that kns speed of  9590 fx 8 core  nearly 10000 and kns speed of 1100t amd  6000kns lol.... how it possible... i played in pcc nearly 2 yrs with 6 core amd 1100t without overclock i get nearly 13000kns with houdini.... what i am asking m not getting the appropriate answer... i know about those prosessor what u r posting me ... becz my lots of friends are playing there with those processor..... i want to know approx kns of fx 8 core 4.7ghz...thanks


In my opinion kns is not so important.

In my opinion, the number of cores being utilized is more important.

Last edited by VocalTechnique on Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
I'm a fan of amd and I think I understand this explanation in the fact Fx in 9590, he is 4 core and 4 threand ... and not a real 8 core .... I also have a amd 1090T +, and analyzing I realized that the new FX line is not that good.
This CPU is 200w, gets very hot!! In addition to this already at a high frequency, it will be a little hard to do an over o'clock to give him a significant improvement in the results and the price is a bit high. So I bought the intel 4770. I think a good alternative for you to acquire an intel 4770 k .... Has a great performance and strength ... With this cpu, already won several 20/16/12 core cpus in the range of $ 1000.00 processor  cool biggrin

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
@ful wrote:
I'm a fan of amd and I think I understand this explanation in the fact Fx in 9590, he is 4 core and 4 threand ... and not a real 8 core .... I also have a amd 1090T +, and analyzing I realized that the new FX line is not that good.
This CPU is 200w, gets very hot!! In addition to this already at a high frequency, it will be a little hard to do an over o'clock to give him a significant improvement in the results and the price is a bit high. So I bought the intel 4770. I think a good alternative for you to acquire an intel 4770 k .... Has a great performance and strength ... With this cpu, already won several  20/16/12 core cpus in the range of $ 1000.00 processor  cool biggrin


Don't buy AMD if you are going to use chess engines. Most of the most sophisticated compiles are optimized for Intel-chip based mods.

(i.e. SSE4.2 popcnt)

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
High End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 Benchm10

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
High End CPUs - Updated 26th of January 2014
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

descriptionHigh End CPUs - Updated - Page 3 EmptyRe: High End CPUs - Updated

more_horiz
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum