Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 13:11:33 07/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
>Vincent: 256 ns >Note, random access is faster than before >I get similar numbers for smaller sizes bigger than the cache > > >Summary: There is more, than just an lmbench number. Actually >the comment in lmbench source suggests, that they actually >wanted to get the random access times. > >I don't want to argue about defenition of the "real" memory >latency. But for chess programs/hash the Vinent type number >is the most interesting. > >Regards, >Dieter very interesting Dieter, your algorithm confirms roughly Vincent's results! I will try it later at home and learn from your source code ;-) But there is still the question whether this measured times is memory latency per definition - i guess not. In worst cases there is more than memory latency (additional TLB-latency and some RAM hardware interface latencies) to get data into a register - maybe a question of definition. Another interesting point is to measure not only the average but the maximum and minimum access times (processors performance counter?). Are the accesses about equal, or are there heavy spikes due to some chaotic TLB behaviour? Cheers, 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.