Author: Joshua Lee
Date: 15:04:54 01/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2001 at 16:56:17, Joshua Lee wrote: >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. Ok when my computer was finished it ended up saying 4 weren't solved but i went back through and see where Crafty 17.14 doesn't solve 8 of them so it's best to get 1 specific position in which to test NPS and compare the results from that position so any thoughts as to what position to use ? It may be a big difference also if we are using different verison which is what it sounds like to me.
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.