Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 20:29:18 04/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2003 at 23:26:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >First, I didn't say it did or it didn't. I said that tests suggest that there >can be imbalances. > >Second, you found a result for _one_ test. What about one that does a lot of >memory reads? Memory writes? Mixture? > >There are _lots_ of tests to do. Wow, Bob, you're getting quite a workout. First the furious handwaving about how the logical processors are imbalanced (Cray YMP this, Intel secrecy that) and now furious backpedaling. You have been criticizing people for "bad math" this entire thread. You rejected the notion of a 50%-50% division: "But I don't buy the 50% stuff, the cpu is not that simple internally. One thread will run at nearly full speed and the other gets slipped into the gaps" and came up with this gem of idiocy: "If your NPS goes up by 10%, then with a 1.7x multiplier on two real cpus, the program should run 1.07X faster using SMT." And now you're trying to maintain that you never said the logical CPUs were necessarily unbalanced? Hilarious. What's even more hilarious is the way you argued your point--first saying that some guy came up with some numbers that I should look up (uh huh) and then saying you couldn't test this stuff yourself, when even a retarded 3rd grader could come up with a way to test it. Now you're saying my testing was incomplete? Yeah right. Any _moron_ can tell you that if you run a memory intesive program with a CPU intensive program, the CPU intensive program will get most of the CPU time, just like it utilizes most of the CPU on a system with one logical processor. These situations obviously don't need to be tested. The question at hand was logical CPU division for chess programs, where both threads have exactly the same performance characteristics. -Tom
This page took 0.01 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.