Author: Brian Richardson
Date: 19:47:12 03/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 18, 2003 at 20:27:12, Matthew Hull wrote: >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 No, I think that should be up to the compiler. "__int64" is "real" 64 bits. How it is implemented is up to the compiler.
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.