Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 11:36:27 04/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 2003 at 17:53:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 14, 2003 at 16:06:28, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On April 13, 2003 at 11:15:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 13, 2003 at 02:38:00, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>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" >>> >>>And? That is based on _my_ testing with Crafty, as I said. IE it doesn't >>>happen that way for my _threaded_ application. I agreed that it _did_ happen >>>for totally independent processes, after I tested, because I don't normally >>>run that kind of test... >> >>Face it, you were making statements about the processor's architecture that were >>incorrect (remember the Cray YMP drivel you tried to use as some sort of >>supporting argument?). You obviously didn't realize that the CPU's resources >>were cleanly divided and now you're trying to pin this on some semantic "thread" >>vs. "processor" mumbo jumbo and saying that your numbers back you up, except >>that when you wrote the statements, you hadn't run any experiements at all > > >If you look back at my _initial_ post, I _clearly_ said I could not find any >reference >to how SMT divided stuff up. You may have said those words, but your initial posts about Vincent and Anthony's "bad math" clearly showed you rejecting the idea that the processors were split anywhere near even. The basis of your math is "I will get _some_ speedup no matter how slow the second processor is" which does not account for the "first" processor getting any slower, which it does, even in your questionable tests. >>>But it doesn't happen for the particular program that was the subject of this >>>thread, namely does SMT produce any _real_ speedup in Crafty. Data said >> >>How do you figure that? The root of this thread is 3.06 Xeon Test Results, the >>post that I referred you to, and that post doesn't even have the word Crafty in >>it. > >Did you see _my_ response? Did you find the word "crafty" in it? >Sure you did.. Ah, right, I forgot that the subject of a thread is determined by what YOU write about in your initial response. -Tom
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.