Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:58:09 12/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2002 at 23:44:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... even then it's trivial that for the move it is a 100% correct number of nodes. Also it is interesting to know how many nodes you burned before you got to get this pv, so if you see that as a condition, then you have a correct node count anyway. You want to see how many nodes a second you get. Simple as that. you don't want to see it after 2 minutes of search because you do not see then how it goes first few seconds. The first few seconds are crucial to see simply. Nodes burned to other root moves are simply wasted for this PV, and you *did* burn them. So you have to count them. So it is logically that the numbers there apply too. Best regards, Vincent > >> >>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.