Author: Mike Siler
Date: 20:56:54 04/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2003 at 23:29:18, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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 I've just tuned in to this whole debate and, to be honest, this discussion concerns computer knowledge that I don't have. I'm really just writing this to say to Tom Kerrigan that I think you have crossed the line here. Of course I understand heated debates, but you're resulting to name-calling and mocking the mentally challenged in what should be a civilized discussion between adults. I don't mean to wave my finger at you like a substitute teacher, but let's try to keep the posts friendly and in good taste. Michael
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.