Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 15:25:24 04/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2003 at 23:56:54, Mike Siler wrote: >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 Tom and Bob and Vincent have been name-calling for years. Obviously you're a newbie. :-) Dave
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.