Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:59:31 04/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2003 at 09:47:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. That's how I tested it. And the results were _clear_ that SMT speeds things up. And I am not talking just NPS. I am talking time to solution as I posted in the data. > >>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.