Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:44:15 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 15:19:57, Uri Blass wrote:
>On September 03, 2002 at 14:57:58, Dana Turnmire wrote:
>
>>"We talk about mass fraud here."
>>
>>Would you explain in laymen's terms what you are talking about and what the
>>purpose would be for Mr. Hyatt to be lying? I'm sure many here aren't that
>>knowledgable about programming.
>
>
>Here are the numbers copied from vincent reply that concinced me that the data
>is illogical
>2830 is time for one processor(position 1)
>1415 is time for 2 processors(position 1)
>
>procs: 1 , 2 , 4 , 8 , 16
>pos
>1 2830 1415 832 435 311
>2 2849 1424 791 438 274
I don't get it, take this one:
>3 3274 1637 884 467 239
1 2,000 3,7036 7,0107 13,6987
or this one:
>4 2308 1154 591 349 208
1 2,000 3,9052 6,6132 11,0962
Ok, agreed the factor of 2 looks weird, but the rest look realistic to me.
If he really did cheat, why would he choose such lame numbers for the 2x?
I'm not convinced you are right Vincent.
-S.
>5 1584 792 440 243 178
>6 4294 2147 1160 670 452
>7 1888 993 524 273 187
>8 7275 3637 1966 1039 680
>9 3940 1790 1094 635 398
>10 2431 1215 639 333 187
>11 3062 1531 827 425 247
>
>You can see that in almost every position the time of 2 processors is exactly
>half of the time of 1 processors.
>
>It does not make sense because it is known that the speed improvement from more
>than one processor is not constant.
>
>Uri
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.