Author: Wilfried Eberl
Date: 05:19:35 08/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2003 at 23:13:19, Derek Paquette wrote: >On August 28, 2003 at 15:39:19, William Penn wrote: > >>Are these Shreddermarks normal? >> >>AMD Athlon XP 2400+ processor, 2.0 GHz, 640MB installed, 608MB available, >>Windows XP Home, Shredder 7 >> >> 4MB hash, Shreddermark=1591, 391kN/s >> 64MB hash, Shreddermark=1392, 349kN/s >>128MB hash, Shreddermark=1113, 291kN/s >>256MB hash, Shreddermark= 856, 222kN/s >>384MB hash, Shreddermark= 655, 179kN/s >>432MB hash, Shreddermark= 618, 165kN/s >>455MB hash, Shreddermark= 618, 161kN/s (maximum hash) >> >>I don't understand why the Shreddermark and kN/s decreases as the amount of hash >>is increased. That's what concerns me. >> >>I presume that the more hash allocated then the faster the engine is supposed to >>calculate. If so, then why does the speed decrease with more hash? >>WP > >the reason is you are getting close to your maximum limit, i have 256 mb of ram, >if i run my chess program at 128, its fine, using shredder, if i use 192, it >slows down, and I mean really slows down, from 300 kn/sec to about 45 kn/sec > >if you had 1 GB of ram, you wouldn't even notice a diff. Sorry, but this can't be the reason, as his 640MB are close to the 1GB you mentioned. If he uses 256MB hash, he's still far from his machine's maximum limit, but the benchmark results went noticeable worse if you compare to his 4MB values, as they decrease by 45%. Obviously this will not change, even if his machine got 1GB installed - unless there was another program working in the background (but he didn't mention). WE
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.