Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:25:45 12/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2002 at 15:29:12, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 17, 2002 at 15:19:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 17, 2002 at 14:21:10, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On December 17, 2002 at 13:15:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 17, 2002 at 11:58:21, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 17, 2002 at 11:27:18, Matt Taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Crafty gets better results with HT, >>>>> >>>>>In addition to what Vincent said, the data we currently >>>>>have is saying exactly the opposite. >>>>> >>>> >>>>I don't follow. I posted the following twice already: >>> >>>I've done my own tests. >>> >>>>1 thread, SMT disabled, 24 positions, run twice, 1001.5K nps >>>>2 threads, SMT disabled, same conditions, 1604.5K nps >>>>3 threads, SMT enabled, same conditions, 1820.25K nps >>>>4 threads, SMT enabled, same conditions, 1923.0K nps >>>> >>>>Hyperthreading took the 16.04.5K nps for two bare xeon processors and >>>>improved that by 20%. I can certainly post the raw data if it is important. >>>>I believe 20% is definitely better than 11%. And 20% is not something to wave >>>>off as unimportant. >>> >>>I measured similar numbers for 1->2 cpus (24%). But this is only >>>NPS increase, not the actual speedup which will be lower. >> >>So? That's outside the scope of the SMT/HT discussion. The question is "does >>it work" not "does it work well for chess applications." > >This is a computer chess forum. The question is if SMT/HT helps >computer chess programs. > >-- >GCP If my NPS goes up, it helps. Period. Trying to factor in SMP efficiency is another whole issue already covered many times here. The question is, and was, "does HT work?" The answer is simply "yes". Contrary to comments in this thread...
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.