Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 21:04:42 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2002 at 00:00:32, Kevin Strickland wrote: >On April 20, 2002 at 23:37:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 20, 2002 at 15:31:02, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >>>I would not tell "However to all standards, programming of DIEP is very >>>professionally done" about the programmer who needlessly duplicates tens of >>>megabytes of data only because he did not figured out how to efficiently use >>>threads instead of processes. >> >>this is bloody nonsense. Every idiot can proof that multiprocessing >>is faster and easier to implement! >> >>I added just sharing memory to DIEP and i was multiprocessor already >>(of course the algorithm to do so harder). Using threads i would >>have need to rewrite the entire program and evaluation and get >>slower everywhere. 10% slower i would estimate it at. > >I don't think he was trying to discredit Intel at all. I took it as he was >discreditting you. Unless you work suddenly for Intel. there are 2 ways to discredit results a) discredit the guy who gets them b) discredit the program he gets them with c) discredit the accuracy the testresults were gotten in d) start sueing and during the trial disallow results getting posted he's trying a+b now. Very cheap. The real thing he DISLIKES to hear is that INTEL C++ is FASTER now and it might take another year before m$ will release a new version of its compiler that can beat it! Note i only compiled the single cpu version of diep. Not the SMP version. No i'm not working for intel c++. Till recently i alway swas happy about m$ compilers. Note some things still suck at intel c++, like the free linux compiler. I can't get it to work *anyhow* first it complains about directories, now about the free license i have with it (i'm not using the thing commercial at all). Best regards, Vincent
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.