Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 17:27:12 03/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 18, 2003 at 18:14:02, Brian Richardson wrote: >On March 18, 2003 at 18:09:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 18, 2003 at 17:47:49, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On March 18, 2003 at 16:57:17, Brian Richardson wrote: >>> >>>>I have a dual Itanium2 1GHz system. Perhaps you forgot my earlier post. >>>>With the optimizing compilers (tried both Intel and Microsoft), it runs >>>>Tinker at about 2GHz Pentium speed (x86 binary code at only 30%). >>>> >>>>Has anyone been able to reproduce your (Eugene's?) results showing MUCH faster >>>>Itanium2 performance? >>> >>>*sigh* Like I've always said, Crafty is not your typical chess program. >>> >>>-Tom >> >> >>There we agree. Itanium is all about moving data around in large quantities. >>32 bit programs won't necessarily benefit at all, and may well be a lot slower >>in fact... >> >>However, this is also true of many other machines. Many folks drop their >>favorite >>program on a Cray expecting blinding performance and don't get it, because they >>can't >>use the vector hardware. > >Of course, I ran both Crafty and Tinker (also bitboard based). >The results were the same. I even tried a small hash table size >to fit all of Tinker in the 3MB cache...it sped things up about 10%, >but still way below fast 32bit Intel and AMD CPUs. Did you tweak the "defines" in Makefile and chess.h and utility.c? You must tell the code that the machine can do real 64 bits, not just longlong. Matt
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.