Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:56:47 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
Ok... here are two runs. I ran the 24 positions from the DTS paper at 180 seconds per move with one cpu. I then ran them all again at 120 seconds per move, using two cpus (I cut the time as I was sure that 2 minutes at 2 would see everything 3 using 1 cpu would see). I ran this two times. Here are the "cooked" data. The times are in seconds, right from the log files. If you'd like to see the logs, let me know. I hesitate to post them due to their size, but I could put them on my ftp machine if you want to see the raw output. The times were computed as follows: For each position, I found the deepest output and time in the 1cpu log, and called that time the 1cpu time. I found the corresponding output in the 2cpu log and called that time the 2cpu time. Often the 2cpu test goes deeper so it takes a hand-match to find the right times. From that point forward, everything is computed by a program in the obvious way. I went to 2 decimel places accuracy for Martin's benefit and enjoyment. The rightmost digit makes a good random number generator in most cases. :) The two overall speedups are fairly close, but there are some variables in individual positions. I have two more 2cpu tests queued up so I will update this table either later tonite or tomorrow so that there will be 4 2-cpu columns. The average speedup is probably not computed the best way, and I can easily change it if anyone prefers, or maybe even compute it both ways. Right now, it is the sum of the speedups in a column divided by 24. Better would be to sum the times in the 1cpu col and 2 cpu col and divide those, perhaps... We can discuss this if anyone is interested... The data so far. It took longer than I thought. I ran the dang thing 5 times with 1 cpu, due to a typo so I had to start over about 7pm. :( pos 1cpu 2cpu 2cpu 1 153 89 (1.72) 88 (1.74) 2 139 90 (1.54) 90 (1.54) 3 130 82 (1.59) 87 (1.49) 4 176 100 (1.76) 99 (1.78) 5 147 95 (1.55) 99 (1.48) 6 135 77 (1.75) 77 (1.75) 7 92 50 (1.84) 50 (1.84) 8 149 104 (1.43) 89 (1.67) 9 80 60 (1.33) 62 (1.29) 10 155 82 (1.89) 76 (2.04) 11 142 80 (1.77) 80 (1.77) 12 105 76 (1.38) 76 (1.38) 13 149 105 (1.42) 105 (1.42) 14 147 104 (1.41) 87 (1.69) 15 150 86 (1.74) 86 (1.74) 16 159 73 (2.18) 72 (2.21) 17 158 97 (1.63) 97 (1.63) 18 85 42 (2.02) 41 (2.07) 19 125 61 (2.05) 63 (1.98) 20 160 112 (1.43) 117 (1.37) 21 156 73 (2.14) 62 (2.52) 22 77 60 (1.28) 73 (1.05) 23 134 93 (1.44) 95 (1.41) 24 131 84 (1.56) 82 (1.60) average speedup-> (1.66) (1.69) <sarcasm mode on> I am _sure_ Vincent will point out that those don't match my expected speedup formula of speedup = 1 + .7 * (NCPUS-1). Which predicts a speedup of 1.7... Of course, had I not produced 2 decimel place accuracy for Martin, both would have been "dead on". But don't forget, I just compute my speedup by using only one position, not sets. :) I will "widen" that table later. <sarcasm mode off>
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.