Author: John Merlino
Date: 11:02:26 02/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2003 at 13:12:28, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 15, 2003 at 12:59:29, Mike Hood wrote: > >>On February 15, 2003 at 12:39:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2003 at 11:43:40, Mike Hood wrote: >>> >>>>A short quote from Shay Bushink's interview with Mig: >>>> >>>>I'm not sure our dual Athlon at home would have done much worse. We were >>>>somewhat tempted to use the dual because of some initial difficulties we had >>>>with the new hardware, but it was a little better on the quad. The >>>>eight-processor machine wouldn't have made much of a difference, although there >>>>were a few indications that it would have been a bit better in a few situations. >>>> >>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=799 >>>> >>>>Are there any users of this forum who run the deep versions of chess programs >>>>(Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Crafty) on multi-processor PCs who can give opinions >>>>on the performance boost they have observed? >>> >>> >>>I have posted such numbers here many times. Crafty, on a quad at XXX mhz, will >>>run anywhere from 2.5X faster to 4.0X faster than a single cpu at XXX mhz. The >>>average will be around 3.0 or so. The usual "estimate" I give is this: >>> >>>speedup = 1 + (NCPUS -1) * 0.7 >>> >>>And that fits pretty well for an overall "average" speedup. >>> >>>However, that "formula" has only been tested to eight processors, and _most_ >>>of the testing has been on 2 and 4 processors. It is not known (nor even >>>expected) that this scaling will hold for larger numbers of processors. But >>>for duals and quads, the performance is worthwhile. The 8-way boxes vary >>>significantly in performance, depending on how they do memory. For the X86 >>>8-way boxes, they simply are not very good. Other 8-way boxes (alphas, SGI >>>and the like) seem to do just fine but they max out at 16-way (or maybe 32-way) >>>before switching to a NUMA type approach. >> >>Sorry, Robert, I think I expressed my question inaccurately. I'm not interested >>in the speed increase (which is easy to measure), but in the chess playing >>strength increase. Is the strength increase achieved by adding a second >>processor equal to, less than or greater than replacing it with a single >>processor that is 1.7 times as fast? I know, it's difficult to give a >>"scientific" answer without playing hundreds of games, but maybe you or someone >>else can give an "intuitive" answer. Shay obviously didn't think that the quad >>processor used in New York was much better than his dual processor machine at >>home. > >I guess that you may get 40 elo for being 1.7 times faster. > >Uri That sounds about right. Chessmaster adds 50 points for each 2x of CPU power. jm
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.