Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:48:55 11/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2002 at 16:36:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 19, 2002 at 16:34:46, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On November 19, 2002 at 16:18:01, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>I don't think there's any way to prove that they are. >>> >>>I don't think it's a good idea to spew nonsense arguments >>>in a fruitless attempt to convince someone who has another >>>opinion. >> >>So in other words, you have just been a troll today. > >No, I've been specifically attacking people making unjustified >claims they can never support with sound argumentation. > >-- >GCP I found one bit of data. Bruce compiled ferret on a pentium pro 200, and then on a 500mhz alpha. He ran 2.5X faster. I compiled Crafty on the same pentium pro 200 using the same compiler as bruce (MSVC) and then on the alpha using the same compiler again and I ran 3.5x faster. How would you explain that difference? Everything was the same for the two programs. Same compiler. Same processor. Same everything. Except that Bruce used his 0x88 or whatever at the time, while I was using a bitmap. This was in 1997, pretty early. I ran on that machine for the 1997 WMCCC event. Bruce used one of the cryo-machines at 767mhz that year... but 2.5X vs 3.5X has to come from somewhere. Luck? Or what? I'm pretty sure I _know_ the answer. That is a 40% improvement if I did my math right. Which is in line with what most knowledgable people claim a bitmap program should do since not all instructions need 64 bits of data (branches, loop counters, a few others).
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.