Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:38:13 04/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 31, 2003 at 14:55:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: Where are the logfiles? if to big to post, then email them: diep@xs4all.nl anything under 100MB is ok. > >The new results and old results are given below. I notice that for both, >significant performance improvement is seen until 24Mbytes of hash memory >is reached. Beyond that point, the improvement drops off even though things >_still_ see improvement with larger hash. > >Again, the following notes. For 3Mbytes of hash memory, this is about 90 >seconds >per move on a single 2.8ghz xeon. The dual, with 4 threads searches more than >2.0 times >that many nodes, which will probably move the break-even point up to the next >size, which >is 48M. This for a reasonable program that doesn't hash in the q-search. I'd >suspect that >for reasonable programs that _do_ hash in the q-search, the size requirement >will move up >a couple of factors of two at least, due to the overwriting that will happen. > >Someone should run that test, or maybe I'll temporarily add hashing to my >q-search to >see how it affects things. > >But, regardless, the hash memory for best performance is the _same_ for both >runs, >within some margin of error that is not very large. As I said, the positions >are not >important so long as they are not raw endgames like fine 70. > >After vincent's test, I will give the same test but only for fine 70, searched >to a depth of >36 plies, with the same variable hash sizes. This ought to be a "best-case" for >hashing >since fine70 is about the most hash-friendly position known. This will follow a >bit >later today. > > > > >-------------------------------------- > new data from Diepeveen >hash size total nodes total time >-------------------------------------- >48K 685195642 10' 45.657" >96K 595795133 9' 21.891" >192K 532881448 8' 26.678" >384K 499903696 8' 7.834" >768K 464549956 7' 36.368" >1536K 419420212 6' 51.864" >3M 397280312 6' 31.477" >6M 372065936 6' 5.867" >12M 353954066 5' 49.194" >24M 335120523 5' 30.128" new "big enough" point >48M 325010936 5' 24.549" >96M 319447256 5' 22.018" >192M 316337729 5' 20.492" >384M 308363819 5' 30.439" > >-------------------------------------- > previous data from bt2630 >hash size total nodes total time >-------------------------------------- >48K bytes. 1782907232 20' 48.262" >96K bytes. 1324635441 16' 2.635" >192K bytes. 986130807 12' 4.402" >384K bytes. 654917813 8' 29.490" >768K bytes. 1867732396 22' 9.466" >1536K bytes. 1547585550 18' 36.299" >3M bytes. 1214998826 14' 47.526" >6M bytes. 997861403 12' 9.856" >12M bytes. 315862349 4' 18.384" >24M bytes. 291943247 3' 58.600" old "big enough" point >48M bytes. 281295387 3' 51.360" >96M bytes. 258749561 3' 35.094" >192M bytes. 252048149 3' 32.718" >384M bytes. 249648684 3' 36.142"
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.