Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: benchmark test for fun (and for Vincent)

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 17:00:13 09/05/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 05, 2002 at 19:17:10, Slater Wold wrote:

>Could you set me up a telnet account on that machine?
>
>K, thanks!


you are pretty stupid.  Wouldn't you _really_ prefer an account
on the itanium2 that he can't talk about?

:)



>
>;)
>
>On September 05, 2002 at 18:51:39, Eugene Nalimov wrote:
>
>>Dual Itanium (not Itanium2, as I suspect I am under NDA): 1.95
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Eugene
>>
>>On September 04, 2002 at 21:19:05, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>If anyone has the time, and a dual-cpu machine, would you run the following
>>>position to depth 13 using first one cpu, then restarting, and running it again
>>>with two processors?  Everything else at default values.
>>>
>>>2r2rk1/1bqnbpp1/1p1ppn1p/pP6/N1P1P3/P2B1N1P/1B2QPP1/R2R2K1 b - - 0 1
>>>
>>>That is kopec position 22, one of my favorites.  I am only interested in
>>>two numbers, the raw NPS for 1 cpu, and the raw NPS for two cpus.  I don't care
>>>about the times or anything, just the NPS...
>>>
>>>Please include your cpu/speed/vendor/etc...
>>>
>>>Vincent thinks that the 2-cpu test will slow way down in terms of NPS.  I
>>>can't reproduce it on my machines here.  Eugene can't reproduce it on Intel
>>>boxes, but the two AMD machines he has tried produce 1.4X the nps using two
>>>that it produces using 1, while my machines produce about 1.9X the nps...
>>>
>>>Thanks...



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.