Author: Slater Wold
Date: 18:58:57 11/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2001 at 21:50:32, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 20, 2001 at 15:37:39, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On November 20, 2001 at 11:25:50, Gordon Rattray wrote: >> >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>>Thanks for the helpful info! >>> >>>>This is the speedup I see: >>>> >>>>Crafty 1.89x >>>>Junior 7 1.81x >>>>Deep Fritz 1.31x >>>>Deep Shredder 1.81x >>> >>>This is a surprising and disappointing efficiency for Deep Fritz. So, when >>>playing on ICC, do you consider Deep Junior 7 to be your strongest option? I'm >>>assuming that if you have, e.g. Gambit Tiger, then Junior's SMP capability will >>>give it a significant edge when using your dual, since GT is non-SMP. >>> >>>Gordon >> >>I thought so too. Deep Fritz SMP code is broken somewhere. That's why I >>laughed when I heard it was going to be on an 8-way box. It would have run like >>crap. Unless Frans fixed it. > >The question for the match against kramnik is the speed up that they get on long >time control and not in blitz. >I do not know how people got the numbers of speedup for Crafty,Fritz ,Junior and >Shredder A 900mhz 8-way box is not going to be impressive with DF. Not the NPS anyway. And those are all MY numbers. Run on my 2x1.4Ghz. >I think that the way to compare is comparing times and not nodes. I know it's not. You can *NOT* compare solutions with SMP machines. The branching is SO random, and so unpredicible, that I have found solutions in 10 seconds and not been able to find the same solution in 10 hours. It's the beauty of SMP. >You need to take a test suite from positions when the program changes it's mind >after some minutes and comparing times. No. Won't prove anything. Say it takes 10 minutes to find on 1 CPU, it might take 30 seconds to find on 2 CPU's. >If the numbers are not based on similiar test then my opinion is that they mean >nothing. They were based on something. Program A does 1M nps with 1 CPU. Program A does 1.81M nps with 2 CPU's. That means Program A's speedup is 1.81. >Testing it takes time and you need at least some hours of testing before getting >an estimate for the speedup (not in blitz). These were SEVERAL SEVERAL tests I ran. Positions were usually looked at for no less than 1 hour. >Uri
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.