Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:03:28 11/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2002 at 16:59:29, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 19, 2002 at 16:53:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Yep and I don't do it. I've given you _real_ numbers. Of course you can >>_always_ >>run the test that Bruce and I did for yourself. Crafty's source is available, >>so you have >>access to a bitmapper. Yours isn't a bitmapper so you have access to one that >>is not. >> >>Compile both using the same compiler on a 32 bit machine and on a 64 bit machine >>and >>see if one speeds up _more_ than the other. If so, you have to explain why that >>isn't >>attributed to the 64 bit architecture... > >I thought this thread was about current performance rather than future >performance. I've posted my opinion about bitboard vs nonbitboard as >soons as 64-bit machines become common somewhere below this post. > >-- >GCP I've _never_ said bitmaps are faster on X86, and I don't recall that being in this thread anywhere. I have _always_ claimed that bitmaps seem to be about as good as any other approach on a 32 bit machine. Then we started the 64 bit discussion at some point. I seem to remember that you did, on several occasions within this thread, take issue with the statement "bitboard programs gain more from moving to a 64 bit architecture than non-bitboard programs do."
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.