Author: Will Singleton
Date: 20:03:26 07/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 22:45:54, Peter Kappler wrote: >On July 24, 1999 at 21:42:56, Will Singleton wrote: > >>Latest results for the TSCP nps test: >> >>Platform Compiler nps Dann's build >> >>P3/500 msvc opt 63,246 x >>K6-2/400 msvc opt 57,163 x >>Cel/450 msvc opt 56,075 >>K6-3/450 msvc opt 53,634 x >>P2/450 msvc opt 49,338 x >>K6-2/350 msvc opt 45,679 x >>Mac G3/300 CW 3.1 opt 40,519 >>P2/300 msvc opt 38,223 x >>K6-2/266 msvc opt 38,159 >>K6-2/400 cygwin opt 37,516 >>K6-2/350 borland opt 32,638 >>K6-2/350 symantec opt 32,168 >>P2/300 gcc opt 29,205 >>K6-2/400 msvc no opt 28,745 >>Cyrix 300 msvc opt 25,345 x >>K6-2/400 cygwin no opt 23,885 >>P6/200 msvc opt 23,581 x >>Cyrix 200 msvc opt 20,398 x >>K5/116 gcc -0 17,200 >>P6/200 watcom opt 16,018 >> >> >>Note that the fast K6-2/400 result looks a bit out of place. Perhaps a mistake? >> >>The other result that jumps out is that the Mac G3/300 is NOT faster than >>comparable or higher mhz machines when those machines run the MSVC compiled >>version. Is the MSVC compiler really that much better than any other? >> >>Will > > >I was just discussing the K6-2/400 result with James Swafford. Neither of us >can make any sense of it. We both ran the Crafty benchmark, and my K6-3/450 was >34% faster than his K6-2/400. > >Perhaps everybody could re-run the TSCP test, and search a bit deeper, say 7 or >8 plies. The problem with 6 is that the test is over in 3-4 seconds - I think >we will get more reliable results with a longer test... > >--Peter I think ply 6 is deep enough; the node count is high enough (203k) to give accurate timing results. Does NT report clock time the same as Win 98? 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.