Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Itanium2 Testing Crafty & Tinker Informal Results

Author: Mike Byrne

Date: 16:15:08 02/16/03

Go up one level in this thread


On February 16, 2003 at 19:12:24, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On February 16, 2003 at 18:17:32, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>
>>On February 16, 2003 at 16:50:48, Brian Richardson wrote:
>>
>>>I have been running some informal Itanium2 tests with Tinker and Crafty (18.15).
>>>The results are not encouraging.  I know Bob Hyatt has posted better numbers >for
>>
>>Every piece of data I've seen contradicts Bob's claim.  As a wild guess, I might
>>say he saw multi-CPU numbers that either got reported as single-CPU, or someone
>>just assumed they were single-CPU numbers.  However, I haven't actually seen the
>>numbers Bob saw - there is some chance that what he reported is accurate.
>
>
>Eugene supplied some of the numbers.  Someone inside intel supplied others.
>Since, as I have said, I have never had my hands on one of these things, I
>don't have any test results that I can publish as "run by me" as I can post
>for my various hardware choices I do have access to.
>
>However, the alpha numbers in SPEC are way below the numbers that I _do_ have
>logs for for a 21264 at 600mhz:
>
>total positions searched..........         300
>number right......................         300
>number wrong......................           0
>percentage right..................         100
>percentage wrong..................           0
>total nodes searched.............. 236973211.0
>average search depth..............         4.5
>nodes per second..................      783641
>
>That was one cpu.  The next is for a dual 21264 at 600mhz:
>
>total positions searched..........         300
>number right......................         300
>number wrong......................           0
>percentage right..................         100
>percentage wrong..................           0
>total nodes searched.............. 330905102.0
>average search depth..............         4.5
>nodes per second..................     1266767
>
>
>This version was _prior_ to our "lockless hash algorithm" which made the
>SMP scaling much better on the alpha, in terms of raw NPS...
>
>The above I can produce the log files for, for anyone interested in seeing
>the results for all 300 wac positions...


Bob,


Just curious - what time control did you use on this?

Thanks

Michael



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.