Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 12:13:08 03/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2002 at 08:19:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>The whole SMT is interesting for the future, but complete nonsense for p4. >>>Just a marketing hype. For sure not a single P4 can ever profit from it. >>And I'm sure you have measurements to back up this assertion? >You wrote a parallel chessprogram yet? What????? Who cares whether or not I've written a parallel chess program? How does that relate to anything? And, in fact, yes, I have written a parallel chess program. Now that I've answered your stupid, unrelated question, how about you provide us with your measurements that Intel's SMT is worthless for computer chess? >>The only difference between a thread and a process is the memory they use. >>Intel's SMT presents the chip as two unique processors anyway. >And the indirection each process is using when you look at the assembly. >that's loads of extra instructions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What does it mean for a process to "use indirection"? What are these extra instructions? What in the world are you talking about? >multithreading is hell slower than multiprocessing!!!!! What??? Most chess programs are multithreaded to run on multiple processors. They're not mutually exclusive and one isn't faster than the other. You're talking nonsense. >1024 words L1 cache for a program with 4MB datastructure, >DO THE MATH yourself. I can do math, but have you taken a computer organization class? It doesn't matter how big your stupid data structures are, the only thing that matters is how big your working set is. >At K7 MP with visual c++ 6.0 sp4 + processor pack, i'm 100% sure i'm >more closer to or above 2, than under 1. Really, how about you give us some measurements? Oh, right, you don't have any. You're make these numbers up. -Tom
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.