Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:58:33 09/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 23:30:51, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 18, 2001 at 18:27:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Before you label a statement as ridiculous, find me _one_ person that will >>side with you and say that "yes, it is possible to get a > 2 speedup using >>only two cpus on anything but anomaly positions. Find _one_ person that will >>agree... > >This is (okay, not very!) amusing... the statement is the exact opposite of >reality, which (as Bob already knows) is that "it is only possible to get a < 2 >speedup using only two cpus on anything but anomaly positions". > >If a parallel algorithm consistently outperformed a sequential algorithm, then >you've just discovered a better sequential algorithm as well (use time-slicing). > If you then don't use this better sequential algorithm to compare your parallel >algorithm against, you'd be comparing a good parallel algorithm against a shitty >sequential algorithm, which would make the speedup result worthless. That is _the_ point of course. > >It is absolutely key that when people compare their parallel algorithm to their >sequential algorithm that they compare the best possible sequential algorithm. >There are more than a few papers that don't do this... thankfully, at least some >of them have been rejected. > >Dave
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.