Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:32:54 09/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2001 at 03:39:52, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >On September 10, 2001 at 15:53:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 10, 2001 at 15:46:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 10, 2001 at 13:46:10, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On September 10, 2001 at 13:35:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>[snip] >>>>>BTW crafty generally gets 299/300 on a 750mhz machine. If you are using an >>>>>800 and getting 295/300 something seems amiss... >>>> >>>>I only allow 5 seconds per position. If your version can do that on 750 MHz, it >>>>will rule the world. >>>>;-) >>> >>> >>>OK... didn't see the 5 seconds. I do know of at least one program that >>>used to get 'em all at 5 seconds. :) >> >> >>I just checked my log files. A 600mhz 21264 gets 298/300 in 5 seconds, and >>gets 299 in 10 seconds, and gets them all in 60 seconds. Single-cpu. Tim Mann >>ran the test last year some time. >> >>nice box. :) >> >>Actually that 21264 will get 298 in 3 seconds/move > >Here are some benchmarks from SPEC including the time for the crafty part. >Sortet by Crafty-time, Int-peak and Ftp-peak. >The Alpha 21264C has a small advantage. > SORT >SPEC benchmark suite MHz Fp base Fp peak Int base Int peak Crafty time Time / >Ghz >Compaq Alpha 21264C 1001 585 756 561 621 124 124,12 >AMD Athlon 1400 426 458 495 554 126 176,4 >AMD Athlon MP 1200 433 481 495 522 144 172,8 >Compaq Alpha 21264A 833 571 644 511 533 156 129,95 >Dell Pentium 4 1800 615 631 599 619 170 306 >Dell Pentium 3 1000 329 340 454 462 191 191 > > SORT >SPEC benchmark suite MHz Fp base Fp peak Int base Int peak Crafty time Time / >Ghz >Compaq Alpha 21264C 1001 585 756 561 621 124 124,12 >Dell Pentium 4 1800 615 631 599 619 170 306 >AMD Athlon 1400 426 458 495 554 126 176,4 >Compaq Alpha 21264A 833 571 644 511 533 156 129,95 >AMD Athlon MP 1200 433 481 495 522 144 172,8 >Dell Pentium 3 1000 329 340 454 462 191 191 > > > > SORT >SPEC benchmark suite MHz Fp base Fp peak Int base Int peak Crafty time Time / >Ghz >Compaq Alpha 21264C 1001 585 756 561 621 124 124,12 >Compaq Alpha 21264A 833 571 644 511 533 156 129,95 >Dell Pentium 4 1800 615 631 599 619 170 306 >AMD Athlon MP 1200 433 481 495 522 144 172,8 >AMD Athlon 1400 426 458 495 554 126 176,4 >Dell Pentium 3 1000 329 340 454 462 191 191 > >BTW testing with WAC will not lead to any progress! > >Kind regards >Bernhard I disagree to your last comment on two grounds: 1. new programs will _definitely_ improve as their WAC scores improve. Getting the right extensions to solve these quickly is the fastest way to eliminating the ugly tactical blunders likely in newer programs. 2. running WAC after significant changes will _also_ help a lot. If you start missing some that you were getting instantly, you have broken something important.
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.