Gulftown "i9" in Q1 2010 (Digitimes)

[gumballguy]

That is what Chess exaclty has...the integrated cod is now optimal using all the cores at 100%.
And if you look into my list you can see that for example a E8600 @4.9Ghz is already much slower then a core i7 920 @2.67Ghz Stock speed!!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=202139

89) TogaII142JD-2cpu 20/43 02:26 36.452.932 3.971.241 +0.29 E8600 @4.9Ghz DDR3: 8-8-8-21
78) TogaII142JD-8cpu 21/48 03:59 156.925.687 5.327.823 +0.24 Nehalem @2.67Ghz(Core i7 920ES) DDR3: 8-8-8-19

So lower clocks but more cores gives me in this example 1.356.582 positions more in one second!!
And you can see if you overclock these multi cores cpu's to higher levels what speed gaines you get!

It's very clear,the more cores is much better,only game sofware is behind,except some off them and like Chess software!
And this year testing Cluster!

Now this is somewhat apples/oranges because of the different archs,

But, *ballpark* numbers, 2c @ 5ghz should match with 4c @ 2.5ghz. Youre saying 8c @ 2.5ghz is winning? Well, duh. It's twice as much. You should be expecting 4million calcs/sec more but you're only getting 1.4m. And you say it's using all cores/threads at 100%.

You'd be better off clustering two of those 2c systems, assuming you can cluster at 100% efficiency (probably not realistic).

It looks to me as though it proves the opposite of your theory. What of power usage? That can tip the scales (even tip them either way when you start considering clustering).

That said, I'd still buy a quad over a dual, personal preference.

Does chess excite anyone else as much as this fellow? To each their own!