Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Source code to measure it - results

Author: Keith Evans

Date: 21:05:29 07/15/03

Go up one level in this thread

On July 15, 2003 at 23:35:30, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On July 15, 2003 at 23:05:37, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>Now i can disproof again the 130ns figure that Bob keeps giving here for dual
>>machines and something even faster than that for single cpu (up to 60ns or
>>something). Then i'm sure he'll be modifying soon his statement something like
>>to "that it is not interesting to know the time of a hashtable lookup, because
>>that is not interesting to know; instead the only scientific intersting thing is
>>to know is how much bandwidth a machine can actually achieve".
>What is _interesting_ is the fact that you are incapable of even recalling
>the numbers I posted.
>to wit:
>dual xeon 2.8ghz, 400mhz FSB.  149ns latency
>PIII/750 laptop, SDRAM.  125ns.
>Aaron posted the 60+ ns numbers for his overclocked athlon.  I assume his
>numbers are as accurate as mine since he _did_ run lm_bench, rather than
>something with potential bugs.
>I can post bandwidth numbers if you want, but that has nothing to do with
>latency, as those of us understanding architecture already know.

Can you run lmbench and give the latency numbers for different stride sizes?
Then you could quote numbers from cache,...

In the lmbench paper they have a nice graph like this.

This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.