Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:47:42 04/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2003 at 11:18:43, Charles Worthington wrote: charles you must measure in next way: 4 threads versus then reboot, turn in bios SMT off then start it and run it 2 threads. that's how to test it. and not different. >To me, at this point, the jury is still out on 4 threads vs. two. I could run >the machine on 2 threads on the server and see what results I get but those >results would be meaningless because I have no way of knowing if the machine >would have played any better or worse using all 4 threads in identical positions >against identical opponents. The deepfritzmark test clearly shows an increase in >the performance of Deep Fritz 7 on dual threads vs four_but_ a significant >slowdown in nodes per second. This seems contradictory and had I gotten the same >result from Shredder I would have been suspicious as to the accuracy of that >particular benchmark test....but I didn't. Shredder showed a significant benefit >in both nps and time-to-solution with hyperthreading enabled. But the fritz >result is baffling: On the surface a 10% speedup in nodes per second should >result in a 10% increase in the number of positions reviewed by the program. It >should also result in greater ply depth. The faster the machine searches, the >faster it should be able to solve the fritzmark position. This seems like common >sense to me. So, my question is this: Is the fritz benchmark somehow more >innacurate than shredder's or is the reasoning I am using here somehow flawed? > >Charles
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.