Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Crafty and Alpha processors

Author: Joshua Lee

Date: 13:56:17 01/20/01

Go up one level in this thread


On January 20, 2001 at 16:12:25, Eugene Nalimov wrote:

>On January 20, 2001 at 16:01:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On January 20, 2001 at 15:39:02, Joshua Lee wrote:
>>
>>>How fast is crafty on a 800Mhz PIII? AMD Athlon at 800Mhz? I don't know about
>>>the Alpha too much which CPU speeds do they offer for comparison? Would a Dual
>>>or Quad Xenon or Athlon compare with a Single Alpha ? Thanks
>>
>>Here is the output for running WAC at 60 seconds per move on a single xeon cpu,
>>700mhz, 1M L2 cache:
>>test results summary:
>>
>>total positions searched..........         300
>>number right......................         299
>>number wrong......................           1
>>percentage right..................          99
>>percentage wrong..................           0
>>total nodes searched.............. 132559227.0
>>average search depth..............         4.7
>>nodes per second..................      412161
>>
>>
>>
>>Here is the same test run on a 21264 alpha at 600mhz:
>>
>>test results summary:
>>
>>total positions searched..........         300
>>number right......................         300
>>number wrong......................           0
>>percentage right..................         100
>>percentage wrong..................           0
>>total nodes searched.............. 236973211.0
>>average search depth..............         4.5
>>nodes per second..................      783641
>>
>>As you can see, the alpha has a 16% slower clock speed, but is nearly 2x
>>faster...
>>
>>Bob
>
>I believe that part of the explanation is the compiler. You are using obsolete
>GNU compiler on the x86, but state-of-the-art compiler on Alpha. Good x86 C
>compiler will give you at least additional 20%.
>
>Eugene

I have decided to run the same test on my 800Mhz Athlon which should get
destroyed compared with your results, and again on my PIII 500 the drawback will
be lack of ram on the laptop 32MB tops for hashtables should make for a huge
disadvantage compared with an extra 300Mhz and an extra 104MB for Hash Tables
(136) I am not sure if this is better with just 128MB but i can check.

I am seeing between 340 and 480Knps so i hope under chessbase's process test set
it will let me know an exact average. So far 31 wasn't solved so....we'll see.



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.