Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 23:38:00 04/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2003 at 01:03:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>You have been criticizing people for "bad math" this entire thread. You rejected >>the notion of a 50%-50% division: > >I didn't "reject" anything. I simply said it didn't match _my_ results and >it doesn't. I've already posted some results with wild variance. Separate Nonsense. Just read the quote I posted and you seemingly ignored: "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" You go on to say that your assertion is supported by your results, but there is a big difference between saying "this is how things work and my results agree" and "my results indicate this is how things work." >>"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." > >This "gem" is trivially supportable by experimentation. I posted the speedup >numbers and this happened _perfectly_. If you don't understand the math, that's >not my problem... But it is _definitely_ correct. Trivially supportable by running an experiment using Crafty that coincidentally gives you the numbers you want. Well, I don't even know that, because I don't have the patience to find the post with your numbers. How do you explain other programs not supporting your "math"? http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?292584 >Except they don't, as I showed. Two separate chess programs is a different >thing from one chess program using both logical processors... > >Why the odd behavior I don't know, yet, however. Right, see my reply to your other post. -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.