Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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.