Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: There is huge potential to improve further

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 17:38:46 07/10/03

Go up one level in this thread


On July 10, 2003 at 16:37:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On July 09, 2003 at 13:57:06, Gerd Isenberg wrote:
>
>you can get all the spec benches easily online.
>
>what i do usually is like:
>
>http://www.specbench.org/cgi-bin/osgresults?conf=cint2000
>
>then i fill in 'processor' and i write down AMD or INTEL or whatever
>manufacturer i want and i see all the processors of the guys and all benches.
>
>Can be long lists.
>
>Don't focus too much upon this bench though.
>
>It is like saying chessprogram A is better than chessprogram B because at 15
>preselected positions it finds the best move sooner.
>
>Everyone knows the positions and goes tune for it. that's what happens there.
>
>add to it that most programs are clumsy programmed. Take the public Gzip. that's
>a matter of really sick bad programming. It still is good compared to other
>horrors.
>
>Take crafty, it's not even deterministic single cpu if i understood bob well
>here (perhaps there is again a new viewpoint onto this) :)

No idea what that means.  It has always been "deterministic" with a single
CPU.  Just not with more than one.



>
>Crafty is cool to watch though at specbench as it is more IPC based than the
>other software and it is a chessprogram so in general when crafty scores better
>then the cpu is doing better for me in general.
>
>Of course by now all the dudes have optimized for the crafty code too and they
>use some dead old version and cannot use inline assembly of course.
>
>As a result of that for example some fortran code at specfpu, the loops were
>done very dumb inside the program.
>
>If we have an array in memory of 0..n bytes where this is a big array
>and we loop from n-1 to 0 backwards and read from memory then we can imagine
>that this is not so smart.
>
>So there is huge potential for clever compiler programmers to improve their
>specint/specfpu by better compiler software.
>
>Seems HP did a good job there for some Itanium2-Madison systems.
>
>>On July 09, 2003 at 12:54:49, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>>On July 09, 2003 at 07:02:01, Gerd Isenberg wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Current Opterons use so called "DirectPath Double" decode type for most SSE/SSE2
>>>>128-bit instructions, internally they do two 64-byte macroops. But AMD already
>>>>mentioned "Future" Processors with 128-bit "DirectPath" SSE/SSE2 instructions:
>>>>(Software Optimization Guide for AMD Athlon™ 64 and AMD Opteron™, Chapter 9
>>>>Optimizing with SIMD Instructions).
>>>>
>>>>That's a boost to floating point and also SIMD integer algorithms like
>>>>KoggeStone. But when will it be?
>>>>
>>>>Like Athlon, Bitscan (bsf, bsr) and Bittest (btx) instructions are still Vector
>>>>path pipe-blockers (but of course 64-bit). Same for moving data between gp- and
>>>>xmm- or mmx- registers.
>>>>
>>>>Still no popcount and instructions for "reverse" arithmetics (radd, rsub, rneg),
>>>>where the overflow passes from high to low :-(
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Gerd
>>>
>>>And already 1562 in specint with crafty using 64 bits crafty.
>>
>>No idea what it means - i guess it's fast.
>>What's the specint for 32-bit crafty on Opteron or Athlon?
>>Do you have any site where i can read the current specints?
>>
>>>
>>>Please compare what the opteron can do for crafty with the itanium2 and you'll
>>>know which is the better CPU in the future.
>>
>>My Sympathy is with AMD.
>>
>>I currently write KoggeStone-routines for hammer with mmx0-7 for propagators and
>>xmm0-15 for white/black generators. I'm a bit disappointed, that there are these
>>double directpath instructions for 128-bit xmm registers.
>>
>>>
>>>Itanium2 doesn't have bsf/bsr even if i understand well. You need to do it
>>>indirectly at the itanium2!!!!
>>
>>I don't know the itanium2 instructions set - may be there is some "leading" zero
>>count or some fast int to float conversion, where you can pass a single isolated
>>bit as int and get the position from the float exponent.
>>Anyway there is still Walter Faxon's magic c-routine.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Gerd



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.