Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 23rd 11, 12:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc,comp.arch.embedded,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Need help on mobile phone chess playing software and hardwacomparing apples to oranges--how strong is this software in Elo?

rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc,comp .arch.embedded,alt.comp.hardware.pc-
homebuilt


Can anybody help me figure out how fast (what Elo rating) modern cell
phone and mobile phone hardware play chess? Go to the SSDF rating
list http://ssdf.bosjo.net/list.htm and note that

38 Pocket Shredder Ipaq 114 624 MHz 2682 65 -59 138 67% 2557
39 Deep Sjeng 1.5a 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2671 31 -31 493 52% 2659
40 CEBoard Fruit 2.3.1 XScale 400 400 MHz 2642 59 -57 149 59% 2580

Which shows that an XScale 400Mhz machine plays like a Pentium IV
class machine from around 2003. I think XScale is used in some older
(few years ago) Nokia cell phones.

But what about more modern cell phone hardware, like the ones that use
Qualcomm's SnapDraggon chip?

From what I can tell, the following rule of thumb is correct.

Snapdragon (single core) and Marvell's Armada 500/600, both based on
ARMv7 implementations, are roughly equal to Intel's Atom. Intel's
Atom is roughly equal to a 2003-2004 vintage Celeron. So using SSDF
you can do the math and see what a mobile phone playing software chess
program like Pocket Fritz can do in a cell phone employing these
chips. Roughly the programs would have an Elo on the SSDF list of a
little above 2660 Elo on the SSDF list, probably close to 2700 to 2750
(dual core Snapdragon cell phones, which come out in late 2011 to
2012, would be at the upper limit).

But does anybody have more precise figures? Perhaps based on the
number of chess nodes searched per second for various chips embedded
in mobile PDAs and cell phones?

RL

From the net...

Anybody

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Atom

Embedded processors based on the ARM version 7 instruction set
architecture (such as TI's OMAP 3 series and Freescale's i.MX51 based
on the Cortex-A8 processor, or the Qualcomm Snapdragon and Marvell
Armada 500/600 based on custom ARMv7 implementations) offer similar
performance to the low end Atom chipsets[dubious – discuss] but at
roughly one quarter the power consumption, and (like most ARM systems)
as a single integrated system on a chip, rather than a two chip
solution like the current Atom line. Although the next-generation Atom
codenamed "Pineview" should greatly increase its competitiveness in
performance/watt, ARM plans to counter the threat with the multi-core
capable Cortex-A9 processor as used in Nvidia's Tegra 2, T.I.'s OMAP 4
series, and Qualcomm's next-generation Snapdragon series, among
others.

--

Mobile Chipsets: WTF Are Atom, Tegra and Snapdragon?

Dan Nosowitz — Low-power processors aren't just for netbooks: These
computers-on-a-chip are going to be powering our smartphones and other
diminutive gadgets in the forseeable future. So what's the difference
between the Atoms, Snapdragons and Tegras of the world?

Intel Atom
The current reigning king of low-cost, low-power processors, Intel's
Atom flat-out dominates the netbook market. Its single- and dual-core
processors are also some of the most powerful on our list, despite
having abilities roughly equal to, in Intel's own terms, a 2003-2004
vintage Celeron. Based on the x86 architecture, the Atom is capable of
running full versions of Windows XP, Vista (though not all that well),
and 7, as well as modern Linux distros and even Hackintosh. While it
requires far less power than a full-power chip, it's still more power-
hungry than the ARM-based processors on our list, requiring about 2
watts on average. That's why netbook battery life isn't all that much
longer than that of a normal laptop.

You can find the Atom in just about every netbook, including those
from HP, Dell, Asus, Acer, Sony, Toshiba, MSI, and, well, everyone
else. The 1.6GHz chip is the most popular at the moment, but Intel is
definitely going to keep improving and upgrading the Atom line.
However, you're unlikely to catch an Atom in a handset; it's low-
power, yes, but low-power for a notebook. Battery life on an Atom
handset would be pretty atrocious, which is why Intel's sticking to
netbooks for now.

Qualcomm Snapdragon
Based on ARM, which is a 32-bit processor architecture that powers
just about every mobile phone (and various other peripherals, though
never desktop computers) out there, Snapdragon isn't competing
directly with the Intel Atom—it's not capable of running full versions
of Windows (only Windows Mobile and Windows CE), it's incredibly
energy-efficient (requiring less than half a watt), and is designed
for always-on use. In other words, this is the evolution of the mobile
computing processor. It's got great potential: Qualcomm is trumpeting
battery life stretching past 10 hours, smooth 1080p video, support for
GPS, 3G, and Bluetooth, and such efficiency that a Linux-based netbook
can use Snapdragon without a fan or even a heat sink. Available in
single core (1GHz) or dual-core (1.5GHz), it can be used in
conjunction with Android, Linux, and various mobile OSes.

Unfortunately, Qualcomm is still holding onto the notion that people
want MIDs, and is championing "smartbooks," which are essentially
smartphones with netbook bodies, like Asus's announced-then-retracted
Eee with Android. Snapdragon's got promise, but we think that promise
lies in super-powered handheld devices, not even more underpowered
versions of already-underpowered netbooks.

We're frankly not sure when we'll see Snapdragon-based devices sold in
the US. We're sure Snapdragon will end up in smartphones at some
point, as at least one Toshiba handset has been tentatively announced,
but the only concrete demonstrations we've seen have been in MIDs, and
Snapdragon themselves spend all their energy touting these
"smartbooks." Snapdragon's Windows Mobile compatibility suggests we
may see it roll out with Windows Mobile 7, if Tegra hasn't snapped up
all the good handsets.

Nvidia Tegra
Nvidia's Tegra processor is very similar to Snapdragon—both are based
on ARM architecture, so both are designed for even less intense
applications than the Atom. Like Snapdragon, Tegra isn't capable of
running desktop versions of Windows, so it's primarily targeted at
Android and handheld OSes, especially forthcoming versions of Windows
Mobile. What sets Tegra apart from Snapdragon is the Nvidia graphics
pedigree: The company claims smooth 1080p video, like Snapdragon, but
also hardware-accelerated Flash video and even respectable gaming
(though no, you won't be able to run Crysis). They also go even
further than Qualcomm in their battery life claim, suggesting an
absolutely insane 30 hours of HD video.

While Snapdragon tends to be loosely associated with Android, Tegra is
an integral part of Microsoft's plan for next-generation Windows
Mobile devices. Instead of focusing on "smartbooks" and MIDs, which we
think are part of a dead-end category, Tegra's commitment to
pocketable handhelds could spell success. We've seen proof-of-concept
demonstrations of Tegra already, but its real commercial debut will
come with Windows Mobile 7—and if WM7 doesn't suck, Tegra could take
off.

Others
We haven't included certain other processors, especially VIA's Nano,
due to intent: The Nano requires lower power than full-scale
processors, but at 25 watts, it's not even really in the same league
as Atom, let alone Snapdragon or Tegra. The VIA Nano is really
targeted at non-portable green technology, and looks like it'll do a
good job—it outperformed Atom in Ars Technica's excellent test, and
stands up to moderate use with ease. AMD's Puma (Turion X2) is in a
similar boat: It's certainly markedly more energy-efficient than AMD's
other offerings, but as it's targeted at laptops (not netbooks) with a
screen size greater than 12-inches, it's not quite right for our list
here.

These low-power processors aren't just, as we so often think, crappier
versions of "real" processors. They've got uses far beyond netbooks,
especially in the near future as the gap between netbooks and
smartphones narrows.

Still something you still wanna know? Send any questions about why
your iPhone can't play Crysis, how to tie a bow tie, or anything else
to tips at gizmodo.com, with "Giz Explains" in the subject line.
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 23rd 11, 06:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc,comp.arch.embedded,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2011
Posts: 1
Default Need help on mobile phone chess playing software and hardwacomparing apples to oranges--how strong is this software in Elo?

On Apr 23, 4:42*am, RayLopez99 wrote:
rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc,comp .arch.embedded,alt.comp..hardware.pc-
homebuilt

Can anybody help me figure out how fast (what Elo rating) modern cell
phone and mobile phone hardware play chess? *Go to the SSDF rating
listhttp://ssdf.bosjo.net/list.htmand note that

38 * * *Pocket Shredder Ipaq 114 624 MHz * * * *2682 * *65 * * *-59 * * 138 * * 67% * * 2557
39 * * *Deep Sjeng 1.5a 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz * 2671 * *31 * * *-31 * * 493 * * 52% * * 2659
40 * * *CEBoard Fruit 2.3.1 XScale 400 400 MHz *2642 * *59 * * *-57 * * 149 * * 59% * * 2580

Which shows that an XScale 400Mhz machine plays like a Pentium IV
class machine from around 2003. *I think XScale is used in some older
(few years ago) Nokia cell phones.

But what about more modern cell phone hardware, like the ones that use
Qualcomm's SnapDraggon chip?


Why not compare it to XScale (ARM)? However, memory types and clock
rate would make a different.

...


Qualcomm Snapdragon
....

We're frankly not sure when we'll see Snapdragon-based devices sold in
the US. We're sure Snapdragon will end up in smartphones at some
point, as at least one Toshiba handset has been tentatively announced,
but the only concrete demonstrations we've seen have been in MIDs, and
Snapdragon themselves spend all their energy touting these
"smartbooks." Snapdragon's Windows Mobile compatibility suggests we
may see it roll out with Windows Mobile 7, if Tegra hasn't snapped up
all the good handsets.


This is probably old news, very old news. The LG VS740 is 600MHz
snapdragon class cpu + dsp core. Newer versions are 1GHz.
  #3   Report Post  
Old April 24th 11, 12:30 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc,comp.arch.embedded,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Need help on mobile phone chess playing software and hardwacomparing apples to oranges--how strong is this software in Elo?

On Apr 24, 12:27*am, linnix wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:42*am, RayLopez99 wrote:

rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc,comp .arch.embedded,alt.comp.hardware.pc-
homebuilt


Can anybody help me figure out how fast (what Elo rating) modern cell
phone and mobile phone hardware play chess? *Go to the SSDF rating
listhttp://ssdf.bosjo.net/list.htmandnote that


38 * * *Pocket Shredder Ipaq 114 624 MHz * * * *2682 * *65 * * *-59 * * 138 * * 67% * * 2557
39 * * *Deep Sjeng 1.5a 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz * 2671 * *31 * * *-31 * * 493 * * 52% * * 2659
40 * * *CEBoard Fruit 2.3.1 XScale 400 400 MHz *2642 * *59 * * *-57 * * 149 * * 59% * * 2580


Which shows that an XScale 400Mhz machine plays like a Pentium IV
class machine from around 2003. *I think XScale is used in some older
(few years ago) Nokia cell phones.


But what about more modern cell phone hardware, like the ones that use
Qualcomm's SnapDraggon chip?


Why not compare it to XScale (ARM)? *However, memory types and clock
rate would make a different.


Yes, a comparison with ARM is in order, and has been done in some old
testing sites for chess. I reproduce below some data from a few years
ago.

I am now interested in the A4 chip by the iPhone, which is about 35%
faster than first generation SnapDragon chips. I think the iPhone 4
playing chess would be about 2700, since it's about twice as fast as
earlier generations, and for every doubling of speed you gain 100 Elo
points, and from the below data the earlier PDAs had about 2600 Elo
performance (see 2606 Elo below--note that inferior software will push
this number down on the same hardware, so we are talking about the
optimal, best software for any given hardware), so it would rate 2700
Elo on the SSDF scale, and indeed if you Google HIRACS, a chess
software company that writes code for the iPhone, that is exactly what
they claim on their website for the latest iPhone hardware. So the
SnapDragon would be roughly about the same (35% is not that big a
deal) or around 2675 Elo).

In conclusion, so far, the evidence points that Snapdragon (Android)
is roughly the same as a A4 chip (iPhone) for chess playing (again, on
optimal, best practices chess playing software) and roughly they play
about twice as fast as the XScale platforms, and roughly equal in
chess performance a Pentium IV (Athlon, most likely late 1990s first
generation but perhaps a Thunderbird maybe, from around 2002) in
performance, or perhaps as an upper bound (stretching it) a modern
Intel Atom (though I'm sure Intel would dispute that). Roughly these
modern chips play at the 2650 to 2700 Elo level on the SSDF scale.

The next generation A4 and Snapdragon will be multiple core, but other
than multitasking, unless the chess software is rewritten to take
advantage of multiple cores, I'm not sure if that will make the chips
that much stronger for chess. But if the feature size is the same for
the A4 (and Googling it I see that the newer A5 will be the same 45 nm
size as the A4) I don't think the A5 (next generation A4) will be
faster at chess--of course being bigger it will "do more" and be a
better chip for multitasking for mobile phone feature purposes, but
that's beside the point for this discussion.

Any other insights appreciated.

RL

Palm/Pocket PC Software PDA Estimated SSDF Elo Rating based on 288
games
Palm Chess Hiarcs 9.46 Palm Tungsten T3 XScale 400Mhz 2606
Pocket Fritz 2.0 IPAQ XScale 400Mhz 2511
Palm Chess Genius 2.1 Palm Tungsten T3 XScale 400Mhz 2394
Pocket Grandmaster IPAQ XScale 400Mhz 2381
Palm Chess Tiger 15.1 Palm Tungsten T3 XScale 400Mhz 2297
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017