Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:11:40 07/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2004 at 03:45:46, Peter Berger wrote: >On July 14, 2004 at 22:19:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>I say "at least 4x", because each of those Opteron processors was faster than my >>>2.0GHz AMD 64. In fact I think it was quite more than 4x... >> >>Bad math. Here is the correct math. >> >>I had 4 X 2.4ghz. You had 1 X 2.0ghz. >> >>My SMP speedup is about 3.1X. that gives me 3.1 * 2.4ghz effective speed. IE >>7.44ghz. I also lose another 10% overall as that machine did not have all the >>working NUMA kernel stuff, so that drops to about 6.7ghz effective speed. >> >>The difference was really about 3.3x at best... >> >>Those with numbers that anyone can verify. > >There is some additional speedup (at least for Crafty, for Falcon I have no >idea) from running in 64bit mode. Falcon's computer was running Windows XP. > >For Crafty the speedup would have indeed been about 4 . I don't understand. The SMP search definitely is about 3.1x faster. I've posted the data to show this and its on my ftp box already. The raw NPS was off about 10%, which is the gain possible with the libNUMA things that I could not get working on such short notice. IE on a quad 2.4 I should get close to 4x the raw NPS. I did not. Each CPU ran about 10% slower on average than a single CPU 2.4 would run, because of this. It doesn't really matter how it compares to another program. I actually have some logs from some 2.0ghz runs prior to the last CCT, where I ended up on a 2.2ghz box. That was what I used to do the above computations...
This page took 0.01 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.