Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:49:51 11/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2002 at 10:09:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On November 02, 2002 at 18:08:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >My results are reproduced by many. Just take a look at anandtech >for example. It gave a slowdown there. Just means the test or the program was not particularly well-suited. Doesn't mean hyper-threading is bad in general. It works pretty well in all the tests I have run. > >>On November 02, 2002 at 17:49:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>I think the point being that Vincent's post was pure nonsense. SMT _does_ >>>provide a speed-up. Not a slow-down as Vincent claimed... >> >>I'm quite surprised it does, in fact. I wouldn't have expected >>parrallel_efficiency * smt_speedup to have equalled something >>more than 2. >> >>How come SMT is efficient, at all? I have a basic understanding >>what it is but I don't get why it'd work in a chessprogram at all. >> >>-- >>GCP
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.