Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 14:03:16 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 13:38:21, Matthew Hull wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 13:07:54, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 03, 2002 at 13:05:30, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>It gives the reason why i took a closer statistical look >>at his data. In order to find what his speed penalties were >>for processors. Then the fraud he committed was easy to find >>out. >> > >Look man, if all you got is that 13.00000 to prove your point, it's a pretty >thin thread to hang your argument on. It looks like you're really reaching. > >And don't worry that you can't duplicate the numbers with DIEP on some >supercomputer. If it's not a Cray, you won't be able to anyway. > >But if you ever get a quad XEON with interleaved memory, and still can't get to >1.7, then at least you're getting closer to a real argument. Perhaps you missed some of the threads from a while back (a year or so). Vincent has claimed to get >2.0 speedup on 2 processors before. I'm not sure why suddenly he changes this to 1.6 or whatever now. Seems to me he makes up whatever numbers he wants to 'prove' his points, because obviously whatever he says becomes a proof.
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.