Author: Keith Evans
Date: 20:42:17 06/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2002 at 22:35:19, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 19, 2002 at 20:45:33, Keith Evans wrote: > >>Is there an easy way to compare a 1.4 GHz P3 to a 1 GHz McKinley and see where >>this Crafty performance increase is coming from? I'm not at all familiar with >>McKinley, but would it be possible to run a version of Crafty compiled for >>32-bits on a McKinley and compare that to a Crafty compiled for 64-bits on >>McKinley? Is this a dumb idea? If this isn't possible, then it's going to be >>difficult to tell where the performance gain is really coming from. > >It's extremely possible. You can make a bitboard class that contains two 32-bit >ints and overload all the int operators and run it on a 64-bit chip. I suggested >this to Bob last time we had this argument and his response was that Crafty is >written in C, not C++. (Apparently renaming his source files from .c to .cpp and >writing this simple class is too much work.) Perhaps somebody else with access >to a 64-bit chip and a modicum of motivation could perform this experiment. > >-Tom This seems like an interesting experiment to me. So despite your suggestion nobody has ever done this? Not even for an Alpha? Does anybody see a reason that this wouldn't be a fair test? If it's fair, then I would think that it could help to settle the bitboard performance debate. We do have an Alpha at work, but I'm not sure if I could get access. It's pretty much committed to running a GPS simulator, plus it's running VMS (yuck) which nobody at my workplace really understands. They just know enough to launch the GUI. -Keith
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.