Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 18:22:30 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 18:24:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 22, 2004 at 17:20:08, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On August 22, 2004 at 11:18:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2004 at 03:11:59, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On August 21, 2004 at 17:48:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>That is _all_ I have said. I don't know what my working set is. I don't care >>>>>what it is. I do know that for two different testers, bigger cache was faster, >>>>>for Tom it wasn't. Why that is I have no idea, I really don't care, and I don't >>>>>see any point in investigating further. >>>> >>>>I didn't test 256k to 512k at all, remember? That was from a hardware review >>>>site that I have nothing to do with. >>>> >>>>I did run the 512k to 1024k experiment and my dual proc experiment, both of >>>>which confirm the conclusion that I drew from Anandtech's data. >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>> >>>OK. My error. However, Anandtech doesn't have a stellar reputation of late >>>with regards to such tests. See their gaffe with TSCP. >> >>In the TSCP case, they were compiling TSCP themselves and not running the same >>binary on both systems. Since the Sempron is all but identical to the Athlon 64, >>I have no reason to believe that they mis-built Crafty for each system in such a >>way that the speed was identical. >> >>>I have personally run 512K 1024K and 2048K. And I saw results from 1.5MB and >>>3.0MB when Eugene ran his tests. All the AMDs I have access to are opterons >>>with 1024K of L2: >> >>Your data is crap. It's old and it's not reproducable. Even if I cared about old >>versions of Crafty and had a bunch of Xeons, you won't tell us what version you >>were using. (Or even give us a range of versions you might have been using.) > > >Exactly how would I know? But "my data is crap"? From someone that says the >executable needs 5mb of ram when default has 4mb for hash before you even get >started with other stuff? Hey, it's your program, not mine. You explain why I see "5,192 K" on my computer screen right now. Besides, questioning my credibility doesn't improve your own credibility. >> I'm >>inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt because Eugene also saw an >>increase, but I don't see how it matters anyway because now we have recent data >>from two new independent sources (namely Anandtech and myself). > >Exactly what did anandtech use? Note that Eugene's data wasn't 4 years old. Here's an entire web page about exactly what they used: http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2170 -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.