Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:49:34 03/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 2002 at 00:00:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 23, 2002 at 17:21:10, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On March 23, 2002 at 17:07:53, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On March 23, 2002 at 15:58:19, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On March 23, 2002 at 09:53:13, Dan Andersson wrote: >>>> >>>>>As seen in: >>>>>http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000312 >>>>>A chess program using traditional work scheduling algorithms will not be using >>>>>the Hammer architecture at its most effective. But it won't be all that bad due >>>>>to the HyperTransport tunnels. And high bandwidth memory. A funny consequence of >>>>>the architecture is that SMP multiprocessing is achieved by having software >>>>>drivers. >>>> >>>>I don't know what you mean by "traditional work scheduling algorithms" but the >>>>Hammer will be great for running chess programs out of the box. The only way to >>>>make it faster would be to recompile the programs for x86-64, which reportedly >>>>yields a 10-15% performance gain. >>> >>>The Hammer is a 64-bit chip, I expect it to bring a lot more than just 10-15% in >>>chess, more like 100-150% for those progs with bitboards. >>> >>>-S. >> >>You're dreaming. Alpha's don't get *anywhere* near that kind of gain. More >>like the 10-15% that Tom said. >> > > >Depends. Tim Mann produced > 1M nodes per second on a 600mhz alpha. NO >600 mhz Intel will come within 1/2 that total... http://www.specbench.org/cgi-bin/osgresults?conf=cint2000 the fastest Alpha: http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2001q4/cpu2000-20011022-01046.html 4 CPUs in total 8 MB L2 cache each cpu, and 1 cpu enabled, which means probably that the cpu running crafty benchmark was PROFITTING from the other 3 cpu's L2 cache too (classical trick) So it was using in total 32MB L2 cache where 1 cpu has 8 MB. Despite that at 1 Ghz its performance for crafty base runtime is 122. Note this is a very recent test. November 2001. Now latest result for K7 processors which are 32 bits: http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q1/cpu2000-20020114-01202.html So this is a single cpu system. No cheating doing test on a quad like alpha did (or SUN/IBM keep doing). Base runtime 102. So in short alpha 1Ghz with 64 bits registers and 4 instructions a clock and cheating with L2 cache it all results in being 100% x (122/102) (minus 100%) = 19.6% slower than a processor clocked single cpu at 1.667Ghz Relative to the 1.67Ghz from the K7 the alpha achieves like a 102/122 x 1.667Ghz = 1.394Ghz K7 In theory the 4 instructions a clock for alpha versus 3 instructions a clock for K7 give 33% speedup: 1.000 Ghz + 33% = 1.333Ghz It achieves however 1.394Ghz In short i am missing the speedup for being 64 bits at all! > > >>> >>>>-Tom
This page took 0.01 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.