Author: George Sobala
Date: 14:41:21 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
Seems a reasonable explanation. I must say that the speedup table does look perfectly genuine (i.e. no tell-tale fingerprints of having been "made up".) On September 03, 2002 at 17:30:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: snip > >So, perhaps the data has some questionable aspects to it. The only part that >I am _certain_ is "raw data" is the individual speedup values, because that is >what we were looking at specifically. I had not remembered the node count >problem until this email came in and then I remembered a case where Vincent >was trying to prove something about crafty and got node counts suggesting that >it should have gotten a > 2.0 speedup. I had pointed out that the way I do >nodes, it is impossible to produce them anywhere except when all processors are >idle, if you want an accurate number. I _should_ have remembered that we had >the same problem back then. I am therefore afraid that the times might have >been computed in the same way since it would have been quite natural to do >so... > snip >But the bottom line is "trust the speedup numbers explicitly". And if you >trust them, the others can be directly derived from them. >Bob
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.