Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:07:57 02/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2003 at 16:13:29, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On February 12, 2003 at 11:47:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>But I don't >>think OOOE is _nearly_ as important for decent architectures as it is for >>architectures >>that have significant design problems like X86. > >Fine, it's a 30% benefit to Alpha and MIPS, maybe it's 40% for x86... > >>>>The Cray T932 was the last 64 bit machine they built that I used. And it >>>How many NPS does Crafty get on it? >>about 7M. >>And that was Cray Blitz, not Crafty. I have not tried to run Crafty on a Cray, > >7M per processor? How many processors did those Crays come with? 32? So Crazy >Blitz was searching 224M NPS? I stand corrected, the T932 is several times >faster than any other processor ever made. No. 7M total as I said, spread over 32 processors (actually we only used 31 on that machine so that one could be dedicated to handling interrupts and the like to avoid unnecessary context switches). > >>>>I did a branchless FirstOne() in asm a few weeks back here, just to test. >>>>It used a cmov, and it wasn't slower than the one with a branch. If the >>>On a Pentium III? >>On a pentium IV. >>Although I did test it on my PIII xeon box, so I guess the answer is "yes" to >>the III as >>well... > >You "guess"? I never said anything about cmovs being bad for the P4, so why do >you keep talking about the P4? > >-Tom I ran it on both, as I said. I simply almost forgot that my 700's were PIII's while my dual 2.8 is PIV's. I did the testing on both since I use both to play chess and fiddle with assembly. Restated: I ran the branchless stuff on a PIII/700 xeon, and a PIV/2800 xeon. It worked well on both. I "guess" it therefore works well on all PIII/PIV processors, even though I only have xeons to test.
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.