Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:19:34 12/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2002 at 14:21:10, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 17, 2002 at 13:15:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 17, 2002 at 11:58:21, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On December 17, 2002 at 11:27:18, Matt Taylor wrote: >>> >>>>Crafty gets better results with HT, >>> >>>In addition to what Vincent said, the data we currently >>>have is saying exactly the opposite. >>> >> >>I don't follow. I posted the following twice already: > >I've done my own tests. > >>1 thread, SMT disabled, 24 positions, run twice, 1001.5K nps >>2 threads, SMT disabled, same conditions, 1604.5K nps >>3 threads, SMT enabled, same conditions, 1820.25K nps >>4 threads, SMT enabled, same conditions, 1923.0K nps >> >>Hyperthreading took the 16.04.5K nps for two bare xeon processors and >>improved that by 20%. I can certainly post the raw data if it is important. >>I believe 20% is definitely better than 11%. And 20% is not something to wave >>off as unimportant. > >I measured similar numbers for 1->2 cpus (24%). But this is only >NPS increase, not the actual speedup which will be lower. So? That's outside the scope of the SMT/HT discussion. The question is "does it work" not "does it work well for chess applications." > >-- >GCP
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.