Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:12:13 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 15:41:05, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 15:30:51, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>There's nothing wrong with the numbers to start with. The efficiency drop off >>up to 16 processors looks reasonable. As for the "too perfect" numbers, it >>depends on the display software used to create the table. Especially if one >>uses FORTRAN or some other software that though you are rounding off, it still >>wants to pad the display with zeros. > >Please look at the actual data. I will post the link in a minute. > >-- >GCP Here it is: First, times in seconds: pos 1 2 4 8 16 1 2,830 1,415 832 435 311 2 2,849 1,424 791 438 274 3 3,274 1,637 884 467 239 4 2,308 1,154 591 349 208 5 1,584 792 440 243 178 6 4,294 2,147 1,160 670 452 7 1,888 993 524 273 187 8 7,275 3,637 1,966 1,039 680 9 3,940 1,970 1,094 635 398 10 2,431 1,215 639 333 187 11 3,062 1,531 827 425 247 12 2,518 1,325 662 364 219 13 2,131 1,121 560 313 192 14 1,871 935 534 296 191 15 2,648 1,324 715 378 243 16 2,347 1,235 601 321 182 17 4,884 2,872 1,878 1,085 814 18 646 358 222 124 84 19 2,983 1,491 785 426 226 20 7,473 3,736 1,916 1,083 530 21 3,626 1,813 906 489 237 22 2,560 1,347 691 412 264 23 2,039 1,019 536 323 206 24 2,563 1,281 657 337 178 Next, nodes: pos 1 2 4 8 16 1 87,735,974 89,052,012 105,025,123 109,467,495 155,514,410 2 88,954,757 90,289,077 100,568,301 110,988,161 137,965,406 3 101,302,792 102,822,332 111,433,074 117,366,515 119,271,093 4 71,726,853 72,802,754 74,853,409 88,137,085 104,230,094 5 49,386,616 50,127,414 55,834,316 61,619,298 89,506,306 6 133,238,718 135,237,296 146,562,594 168,838,428 226,225,307 7 58,593,747 62,602,792 66,243,490 68,868,878 93,575,946 8 225,906,282 229,294,872 248,496,917 261,728,552 340,548,431 9 122,264,617 124,098,584 138,226,951 159,930,005 199,204,874 10 75,301,353 76,430,872 80,651,716 83,656,702 93,431,597 11 95,321,494 96,751,315 104,853,646 107,369,070 123,994,812 12 79,975,416 85,447,418 85,657,884 94,000,085 112,174,209 13 66,100,160 70,622,802 70,796,754 78,834,155 96,053,649 14 58,099,574 58,971,066 67,561,507 74,791,668 95,627,150 15 84,143,340 85,405,488 92,557,676 97,486,065 124,516,703 16 75,738,094 80,920,173 79,039,499 84,141,904 94,701,972 17 154,901,225 184,970,278 242,480,013 279,166,418 416,426,105 18 20,266,629 22,856,254 28,443,165 31,608,146 42,454,639 19 93,858,903 95,266,785 100,527,830 108,742,238 114,692,731 20 231,206,390 234,674,482 241,284,621 271,751,263 264,493,531 21 112,457,464 114,144,324 114,425,474 123,247,294 118,558,091 22 81,302,340 86,865,131 89,432,576 106,348,704 135,196,568 23 63,598,940 64,552,923 68,117,815 81,871,010 103,621,303 24 80,413,971 81,620,179 83,919,196 85,810,169 90,074,814 And finally speedups: 1 1 2.0 3.4 6.5 9.1 2 1 2.0 3.6 6.5 10.4 3 1 2.0 3.7 7.0 13.7 4 1 2.0 3.9 6.6 11.1 5 1 2.0 3.6 6.5 8.9 6 1 2.0 3.7 6.4 9.5 7 1 1.9 3.6 6.9 10.1 8 1 2.0 3.7 7.0 10.7 9 1 2.0 3.6 6.2 9.9 10 1 2.0 3.8 7.3 13.0 11 1 2.0 3.7 7.2 12.4 12 1 1.9 3.8 6.9 11.5 13 1 1.9 3.8 6.8 11.1 14 1 2.0 3.5 6.3 9.8 15 1 2.0 3.7 7.0 10.9 16 1 1.9 3.9 7.3 12.9 17 1 1.7 2.6 4.5 6.0 18 1 1.8 2.9 5.2 7.7 19 1 2.0 3.8 7.0 13.2 20 1 2.0 3.9 6.9 14.1 21 1 2.0 4.0 7.4 15.3 22 1 1.9 3.7 6.2 9.7 23 1 2.0 3.8 6.3 9.9 24 1 2.0 3.9 7.6 14.4 avg 1 2.0 3.7 6.6 11.1 All of the data was produced by a program similar to that which I use to produce results from things like WAC and so forth. The program eats the log files, gathers the nodes, times, scores, etc, and then produces whatever table I asked it for...
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.