Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: 200 Million NPS in 97 not 1 Billion NPS wrong again (nt)

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 08:12:46 07/21/00

Go up one level in this thread


On July 21, 2000 at 02:52:33, blass uri wrote:

>On July 20, 2000 at 22:24:57, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On July 20, 2000 at 22:02:57, Chris Carson wrote:
>>
>>>.
>>
>>
>>Nope.  Please read again.  I _clearly_ said it peaked at 1B nodes per second.
>>
>>The math is trivial:  480 chess processors, 1/2 at 2M nodes per second,
>>the other half at 2.4M nodes per second.  When you multiply that out, you
>>get 1B+ nodes per second.  Hsu figured that he _averaged_ 70% utilization
>>for the processors.  Down to 700M nodes per second.  He then took 30% of
>>that as his dissertation says that his parallel search efficiency was 30%
>>for that many processors.  IE a _honest_ 200M+ on average, while he was
>>_really_ searching at 700M nodes per second but 70% of the nodes are search
>>overhead.
>>
>>Deep Junior doesn't report search overhead.  I will safely assume his is no
>>better than mine, which means about 1/4 of his nodes are wasted on average,
>>with peaks way above (and below) that number.
>
>I decided not to post opinions about the strength of deeper blue because we
>cannot check facts about it and I will not convince you about it.
>
>I will post in this subject only when I think that the facts that can be checked
>are wrong.
>
>In this case the effective nps of Deep Junior is 2.4M*3/4=1.8M
>1000/2.4 is clearly bigger than 200/1.8
>
>I also do not know if the 2.4M is not effective nps.
>My Junior5.9 on pII450 does often 300Knodes per seconds.
>
>If Deep Junior is not significantly slower in nodes per second then I expect
>pIII700*8 to be significantly more than 8 times faster in not effective nps.
>
>Uri


Why?  My NPS _drops_ in a SMP search.  The PC doesn't have the necessary
memory bandwidth to run at full speed.  On my quad xeon, I lose 7% of my search
speed if I run crafty on one cpu, and another compute-bound program on another
cpu.  If I run two other compute bound programs, I lose 15%.  If I run 3, so
that I am using one cpu and the other three are busy on something else, I lose
25% of my one-cpu NPS due to memory delays.  an 8-way box is _much_ worse based
on some testing on a Dell box I ran several months ago.

And these are _raw_ NPS figures since I am just running a single cpu test, but
contending for the tiny memory bandwidth limit the PC has...



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.