Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:46:57 12/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2002 at 11:29:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: hello Bob, please do the same tests i did with DIEP too with crafty. Of course as you always say that doing a few tests proof nothing, please repeat them twice. For me doing a test twice with crafty is sufficient. I am especially interested in the completed logs too so that we all can see what mainline you took to compare the speedup and absolute speeds in nps. The important 2 tests to be repeated twice are: 2 threads without HT 4 threads with HT I don't doubt you did the 2 versus 4 compare with HT turned on. I like to see the compare without HT versus with HT a lot. Best regards, Vincent >On December 17, 2002 at 10:48:49, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>>>parallel search overhead, you have a problem on _normal_ SMP machines as well. >> >>Indeed it is true that the first seconds the HT/SMT gives big problems >>in speed. Only after a couple of minutes the speed shows. I see only >>a speedup after a minute or 3 each position. > >So? That is _your_ program's results. Mine are just like they have always >been. I get a reasonable speedup whether it is one second per move or one >hour per move. No difference. > > >> >>I need to add however that i could improve a few issues in this version >>which could get that down to 1 minute but like you i doubt whether the 11.4% >>of HT is worth it. > >11.4% is _always_ worth it IMHO... > > >> >>I prefer a dual AMD instead for the moment! >> > > >Nothing wrong with that. I got the dual xeon because I wanted a chance to play >with the SMT stuff since it is obviously going to be "the future" of >microprocessor >architecture...
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.