Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 12:04:27 07/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 12:20:19, James Swafford wrote: >Using Dann's executable on my K6-2/400: 57,019 nps. > >Dann : what compiler did you use, and with what options? >That's over 50% faster than CygWin with the -O flag. > Now I'm very confused. Your K6-2/400 came in almost 10% faster than my K6-3/450. Even at equal clock speeds, the K6-3 should signifiantly outperform the K6-2, since its L2 cache runs at core speed, instead of 100MHz. It's true that I'm running Win98 and you're running NT, but I can't believe that could make such a big difference. Any ideas? --Peter >-- >James > > > > >On July 23, 1999 at 14:49:20, Will Singleton wrote: > >>Results, so far, for the TSCP nps test: >> >>Platform Compiler nps >> >>Mac G3/300 CW 3.1 opt 40,519 >>P2/300 msvc opt 38,223 >>K6-2/400 cygwin opt 37,516 >>P2/300 gcc opt 29,205 >>K6-2/400 msvc no opt 28,745 >>K6-2/400 cygwin no opt 23,885 >>K5/116 gcc -0 17,200 >>P6/200 watcom opt 16,018 >> >>Can anyone beat the Mac G3? I'm surprised the K6/400 isn't as fast as the >>P2/300 (though different compilers were used). >> >>I would really like to see a few more machines here, as well as get >>corroborating results from similar machines. Please submit results here or by >>email. >> >>For those of you willing to participate, here's the method I followed: >> >>Download TSCP v1.3. ( http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~kerrigat/ ) >>Modify the procedure Think() in search.c to: >> search 6 ply. >> Calculate and display NPS. >>Compile using optimize on. >>Run TSCP, and type ON. >> >>Thanks. >> >>Will
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.