Also, Nathan submitted a benchmark for that computer to Sedat. His benchmark @ 4 cores is 15% slower than the i5-6600k @ 4 cores. Assuming that also holds for 1 core, the i7-6900k would probably use a time control of 40/13.
All assuming prehistoric 32bit Crafty not using any modern speed-up instruction.
Just SSE4.2 that AMD doesn't have brings at least 15% speed-up, plus much more efficient 64bit architecture of newest Haswells compared to old AMD K8 core. On top of that add much faster hash access and you'll get at least 25% speed-up overall using the latest SF.
Also, Nathan submitted a benchmark for that computer to Sedat. His benchmark @ 4 cores is 15% slower than the i5-6600k @ 4 cores. Assuming that also holds for 1 core, the i7-6900k would probably use a time control of 40/13.
All assuming prehistoric 32bit Crafty not using any modern speed-up instruction.
Just SSE4.2 that AMD doesn't have brings at least 15% speed-up, plus much more efficient 64bit architecture of newest Haswells compared to old AMD K8 core. On top of that add much faster hash access and you'll get at least 25% speed-up overall using the latest SF.
That is true. And I won't disagree that changing the benchmark engine to a recent SF would bring the time control for an i7-6900k at stock speed closer to 40/10. But that would be a lower bound according to the Sedat SF benchmarks.