Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:46:06 04/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2003 at 14:36:27, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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. And, by golly, my _test_ results support my original conclusion. 70-30 is _not_ balanced. At least not on any scale I care to use. What is causing it is unknown. But it is an issue... > >>>>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 Don't understand the concept of threads and sub-threads, eh? I posted comments about Crafty, and _that_ particular thread followed that idea... That's why posts below that one are indented under it if they are related to _that_ response, and they are indented under _other_ posts if they are following _that_ response...
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.