Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:34:09 01/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2001 at 18:04:54, Joshua Lee wrote: >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. For your test this doesn't matter... just run the _same_ version on the two different machines. Best would be to simply type "bench" and let that run. default hash and everything.
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.