Author: Uri Blass
Date: 20:04:38 11/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2001 at 21:58:57, Slater Wold wrote: >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. It means that one position is not enough to get an estimate for speed improvement You can take 100 positions when 1 CPU and 2 CPU get the same move after an hour of search but 1 cpu needs at least some minutes to find the move(the positions do not have to be tactical). After it you can use the information to get an estimate for the speed up by the following way(solving mean finding the moves that 1 CPU and 2 CPU like after an hour): 1)calculate the sum of the times that one processor needs to solve the 100 positions 2)calculate the sum of the times that 2 processors needs to solve the 100 positions 3)get an estimate for speed improvement by dividing the numbers. > >>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. I do not care about this number I believe that this number should be 2 for crafty because the proccesors always work in Crafty and the only problem is that in part of the cases both proccesors search the same part of the tree. Uri
This page took 0 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.