Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:19:57 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 14:57:58, Dana Turnmire wrote: >"We talk about mass fraud here." > >Would you explain in laymen's terms what you are talking about and what the >purpose would be for Mr. Hyatt to be lying? I'm sure many here aren't that >knowledgable about programming. Here are the numbers copied from vincent reply that concinced me that the data is illogical 2830 is time for one processor(position 1) 1415 is time for 2 processors(position 1) procs: 1 , 2 , 4 , 8 , 16 pos 1 2830 1415 832 435 311 2 2849 1424 791 438 274 3 3274 1637 884 467 239 4 2308 1154 591 349 208 5 1584 792 440 243 178 6 4294 2147 1160 670 452 7 1888 993 524 273 187 8 7275 3637 1966 1039 680 9 3940 1790 1094 635 398 10 2431 1215 639 333 187 11 3062 1531 827 425 247 You can see that in almost every position the time of 2 processors is exactly half of the time of 1 processors. It does not make sense because it is known that the speed improvement from more than one processor is not constant. 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.