Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:26:06 02/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 13:29:05, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >Andrew Kadatch (who wrote TB compression/decompression code) wrote small program >that tries to overheat some part of the CPU. I asked him, and he gave his >permission to put Windows executable into some FTP server -- actually it was >somewhere in the Web for some time. We can put it on Bob's server if that's Ok >for Bob. > >Warning: that program actually burned several overclocked CPUs :-) > >Thanks, >Eugene I put it in /pub/hyatt/warmup.zip, for anyone interested in running it. :) > >On February 19, 2003 at 11:38:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 18, 2003 at 23:39:18, Aaron Gordon wrote: >> >>>Hyatts box benchmarks a little over 2 million nodes/sec in the crafty benchmark. >>>Hyatt, I know you say you get 2.5 million but in all the games you've played >>>online where you've kibbed your nodes/sec you've ALWAYS been just over 2 million >>>(2050-2150kn/s most of the time). Also, about a dual P4-3.06 + HT getting 3 >>>million nodes/sec. Not going to happen (Possible in the endgame with almost no >>>pieces). My AthlonXP 2100+ overclocked to 2.44GHz gets a little over 1.5 million >>>nodes/sec in crafty and I've seen over 2 million in end-games. Enricos 2400+ @ >>>2.52GHz gets almost 1.6 million in crafty. >> >>Here are some numbers from a game just played: >> >> time=3:47 cpu=398% mat=-2 n=532216437 fh=93% nps=2343k >> time=4:25 cpu=399% mat=-2 n=615322858 fh=92% nps=2316k >> time=2:52 cpu=399% mat=-2 n=381723163 fh=93% nps=2215k >> time=3:12 cpu=398% mat=-2 n=432413276 fh=92% nps=2243k >> time=3:39 cpu=398% mat=-2 n=509021660 fh=90% nps=2317k >> time=2:01 cpu=399% mat=-2 n=280114908 fh=90% nps=2303k >> time=1:49 cpu=399% mat=-2 n=248735781 fh=90% nps=2273k >> time=2:53 cpu=398% mat=-3 n=403103259 fh=90% nps=2324k >> time=2:52 cpu=399% mat=-3 n=400323062 fh=90% nps=2321k >> time=1:49 cpu=399% mat=0 n=259262534 fh=90% nps=2373k >> time=1:48 cpu=398% mat=0 n=268405707 fh=91% nps=2479k >> time=4:20 cpu=398% mat=-1 n=625737329 fh=91% nps=2405k >> time=2:15 cpu=397% mat=-1 n=333429338 fh=92% nps=2457k >> time=1:47 cpu=398% mat=-1 n=259890267 fh=92% nps=2418k >> time=1:24 cpu=397% mat=0 n=204315540 fh=94% nps=2408k >> time=1:29 cpu=396% mat=-3 n=218637842 fh=94% nps=2454k >> time=1:19 cpu=398% mat=-1 n=191197121 fh=93% nps=2415k >> time=1:17 cpu=398% mat=2 n=185866947 fh=92% nps=2404k >> time=1:49 cpu=398% mat=1 n=266422638 fh=93% nps=2434k >> time=1:12 cpu=397% mat=1 n=176503700 fh=93% nps=2427k >> time=1:10 cpu=398% mat=1 n=167575005 fh=93% nps=2360k >> time=1:09 cpu=398% mat=1 n=171500968 fh=95% nps=2479k >> time=1:44 cpu=398% mat=1 n=254712457 fh=94% nps=2429k >> time=1:05 cpu=396% mat=1 n=159894553 fh=94% nps=2448k >> time=57.20 cpu=397% mat=1 n=135742820 fh=94% nps=2373k >> time=1:02 cpu=398% mat=1 n=147915710 fh=94% nps=2374k >> time=3:49 cpu=397% mat=1 n=593274205 fh=97% nps=2581k >> time=2:16 cpu=397% mat=1 n=351235842 fh=94% nps=2565k >> time=3:59 cpu=398% mat=1 n=608866251 fh=94% nps=2545k >> time=1:04 cpu=398% mat=1 n=165807816 fh=94% nps=2575k >> time=17.53 cpu=395% mat=-4 n=44183665 fh=95% nps=2520k >> time=1:20 cpu=394% mat=0 n=195342773 fh=93% nps=2434k >> >> >>So, there _are_ a bunch of 2.5M numbers in there. Before castling, crafty is >>almost >>always under 2M, after castling, it varies. 2.5M is less frequent when I have >>endgame >>tables turned on as I always do, but if I turn them off in endgames, it can >>reach beyond >>3.0M. >> >>As I have said _often_ there is no one NPS value that is correct. I usually >>refer to 2.5M >>as the typical number in the middlegame, which is fairly close. If you want to >>argue it >>should be 2.4M, you have a point. If you want to argue it should be 2.0 because >>of the >>opening, that is also a point. But in middlegame positions, such as those in >>test suites, >>Here are a couple of outputs: >> >>WAC: >>average search depth.............. 4.9 >>nodes per second.................. 2408280 >> >>ECM (subset): >>average search depth.............. 7.3 >>nodes per second.................. 2521680 >> >>So the numbers make reasonable sense to talk about 2.4M-2.5M. >> >>As far as your overclocking stuff goes, feel free to do it. I take the results >>with a >>grain of salt, because I understand things like "settling time". I once spent >>two weeks >>debugging a problem on an AMD machine that was overclocked (I did not know it at >>the time). I then discovered the program ran _perfectly_ on an intel box I had, >>but would >>fail after several hours on the AMD. I reset everything to factory specs and >>the program >>ran fine on the AMD as well. >> >>Circuits have a distinct "settling time" that varies depending on inputs and >>other things. If >>you cut the clock cycle time so that this circuit settles almost all the time, >>before the clock >>edge falls, then you will get right answers almost all the time. But there are >>those rare >>exceptions where bogus results pop out, and I don't want them in _my_ program. >>I don't >>care _how_ well it is tested, unless you do an _exhaustive test_ (impossible) >>there is always >>room for doubt... >> >>I want solid results... >> >>Feel free to use any NPS number you want. My 2.5M is pretty close to normal for >>most of the game, and it can go up above that without 200 gigs of 6 man egtb >>tables. >> >> >>> >>>There are *NO* P4 chips available that can match this, including a P4-3.06 Xeon >>>+ HT. Those get around 1.3 million WITH HT in crafty. If you do a 1.3 million * >>>1.8 you come out to 2.34 million nodes/sec. Far cry from 3 million nodes/sec. >>> >>>How much did MY box cost? $97 for the chip, $80 for the board. $75 for the ram, >>>etc. Not much at all.
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.