Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:44:17 12/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2002 at 19:33:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 06, 2002 at 11:53:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 06, 2002 at 10:31:54, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On December 06, 2002 at 10:24:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 06, 2002 at 07:14:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 06, 2002 at 05:40:25, Matt Taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 06, 2002 at 05:09:03, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6586 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I love marketing. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sargon >>>>>> >>>>>>Offhand I would have said the one on the left was a Williamette. ;) >>>>>>Then again, Intel claimed that both chips had HT. >>>>>> >>>>>>The only thing I can figure is that someone made a big typo. >>>>>> >>>>>>-Matt >>>>> >>>>>Test results provided by Robert Hyatt i see in small font right bottom :) >>>> >>>> >>>>What are you talking about here? I haven't given them any results at all. In >>>>fact, >>>>I have had a hyperthreading CPU in my office for two days now and the only >>>>result I have provided to anyone was what I provided here (SMT on = 1.33X SMT >>>>off). >>> >>>Can you please post verbose outputs with for each ply also the number >>>of nodes printed? >>> >>>That factor 9 times speedup of their own test is a bit much though :) >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Vincent >> >> >>I can post output. I can't print nodes between plies for the same reason I have >>never >>been able to do that. All I can do is search to a specific depth and print the > >Why can everyone print nodes and you cannot? Is it absolutely necessary that I explain this 6-8 times per year to you? The reason hasn't changed. It won't change... > >Simple parallel insight. > >When you have a parallel program like crafty and end an iteration. You have been asking me to print the nodes each time I print a new PV. I can't do that because I split at the root. > >It is easy to proof then that no other thread is busy searching >then, because otherwise you would not have finished the ply. > >Proof ends. So? I don't do this. I am not going to do this. end of story... It serves _no_ purpose. > >Same is true for displaying mainlines when you don't split in root. However I _do_ split in the root... > >In case of DIEP i nowadays simply have node counts for each processor. >It simply adds up node counts of other processors at each mainline. > >It could be incorrect but practically that hardly happens. At end of >iteration it is never incorrect though, despite that i do not lock. > >Best regards, >Vincent > >>node counter >>when the search completely stops. >> >>I ran a dual-thread test with SMT off, and a quad-thread test with SMT on. >> >>The single position I tried searched 1.5M nodes per second with SMT off, and >>2.1M >>nodes per second with SMT on. I haven't had time to run exhaustive tests and I >>haven't >>tried to find time as I need to fix the spinlock and spinwait stuff anyway, >>adding the >>pause instruction... >> >>the 9x has to be a typo. The best I have heard was Eugene's 2.0 speedup running >>two >>tablebase compression programs at the same time...
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.