Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 02:04:29 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 00:49:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 20, 2003 at 20:10:58, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On February 20, 2003 at 19:09:18, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>It seems you know a lot more than I do about instruction latencies. How do you >>>explain Crafty's disproportionate speedup on IA-64, then? And why would you >>>think Crafty's performance is a good predictor of other chess programs on IA-64 >>>when Crafty is so much different from many other programs? >>> >>>Of course, all we have is Hyatt's word that Crafty does well on IA-64, although >>>he's never seen it in person, and people who have seen Crafty run on IA-64 in >>>person seem to contradict him... >>> >>>-Tom >> >>I saw Crafty on Itanium2 in person, and results were closer to what Bob reported >>here than to what was reported here recently. >> >>Thanks, >>Eugene > > >I have only seen _one_ bad Itanium2 report. I have seen _two_ good reports, >one from Eugene, one from someone inside Intel. I have a problem with the >Intel version because of the spec stuff I did and a NDA that is in force. > >However, there are other good 64bit results from the alpha 264 chip as well, >factoring 800K from 600mhz would reach beyond 1600K at 1.25ghz, which is the >fastest 264 I have seen. > >Eugene has never told me what he did to produce good results. Nor do I know >what Intel did specifically as I was not really involved and it was just a >"heads up" from someone there about an interesting result. Whether either >(Eugene or Intel) tweaked the code I don't know. I specifically know that Tim >did not for the 600mhz 264 results I posted here, he compiled that code as is >and ran it, without even testing to see if compact-attacks was better than the >default or not. > >I don't understande all the 64 bit nonsense myself. It seems pretty obvious >that for 64 bit operations, they are going to be faster, _period_. For 32 bit >programs, who cares? Sort of like benchmarking a non-vector program on a Cray. >Of course it will not run very well. Eugene reported 3M nps for single Itanium, right? IIRC, my own results posted a while ago were about 1.6M nps in Crafty on a dual 1.67 GHz AthlonMP, so 800K nps at 1.67 GHz single-CPU. At 2 GHz, Athlon would be roughly 1M nps. Itanium is faster then by a factor of 3 at half the clock speed. Half the clock speed means it has equivalent theoretical IPS (6x1 GHz vs. 3x2 GHz). Assuming -all- ops were 64-bit and therefore Crafty derived a speedup of 2, that does not account for the additional gain which is rather significant. Yes, Crafty will run faster on a 64-bit machine, but will it run that much faster? Unless I have made some error, I don't see how the 64-bit machine word could solely explain the speed gains on Itanium. I don't really know where the extra speed came from. Maybe it's from the cache. Maybe Itanium comes much closer to 6 IPC than Athlon does to 3 IPC. There are any number of explanations, but I don't know because I have no idea how efficient IA-64 compilers are. -Matt
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.