Author: Charles Worthington
Date: 14:16:51 02/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 16:41:09, Steffen Basting wrote: >On February 19, 2003 at 16:18:54, Charles Worthington wrote: > >>On February 19, 2003 at 16:13:58, Steffen Basting wrote: >> >>>Hi! >>>No, I would say Martin is right. You can do that with rather practical numbers: >>> >>>One processor, ht disabled: 1.000 nps. >>>=> Two processors, ht disabled: 2.000 nps. >>> >>>One processor, ht enabled: 1160 nps (ht disabled + 16%). >>>=> Two processors, ht enabled: 2.320 nps. >>> >>>and 2.000 * 1.16 = 2.320, so your speed up is 16% for both cpus. >>> >>> >>>Regards, Steffen Ok now i see where you are coming from. The 16% is the confusion. The processors are realizing 20-30% each not combined. >> >> >>actally the speedup is doubled when you are dealing with dual processors. You >>are using reverse mathematics to arrive at an incorrect answer. I honestly think >>Dr. Hyatt knows his math. > >There's no doubt that Dr. Hyatt knows his math - I just cannot see the "bug" in >my example. If the speed-up increases in the way you describe (n proc * 16%), it >would mean that with 16 processors ht enabled you arrive at 256%. So you are >faster than > 32 processors with ht disabled. This doesn't seem to be correct... > >Regards, Steffen
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.