Author: Tony Werten
Date: 05:55:51 09/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 2003 at 04:28:04, Ed Schröder wrote: >On August 31, 2003 at 19:44:28, William Penn wrote: > >>The more hash I allocate, the slower the kN/s speed. Thus 4MB (the minimum) is >>the fastest in my tests, typically about 450kN/s. If I increase that to say >>256MB hash, the speed slows down to about 400kN/s. The more I increase hash, the >>slower the kN/s speed. > >Correct observation, reasons: > >1) more HT lookup's and updates. Sorry Ed, I don't see how you get more lookups. ( Updates took me a few minutes ) > >2) Spoiling the processor's DATA cache. This is the biggest loss imo Tony > >Ed > > >>The kN/s speed peaks, then eventually starts to decrease. How long this takes >>depends on the amount of hash. However in my tests, the long term speed >>advantage of bigger hash never catches up with the long term speed obtained with >>smaller hash. Thus I don't see any advantage whatsoever to using a hash table! >>The opposite seems to be true!? >> >>I'm using the Shredder7 GUI, Shredder 7.04 UCI engine, AMD XP Athlon 2400+/640MB >>RAM (608MB available). The GUI says the maximum I can allocate to hash is about >>455MB, so I'm not near the limit. Of course I'm using fairly common practical >>positions for these tests in Infinite Analysis mode, and the above indicated >>results are typical. >> >>I get very similar results running Shreddermarks with different size hash. The >>more hash, the lower the Shreddermark and corresponding kN/s. >> >>Now, will someone please refute this, or explain what I'm missing or >>overlooking? Thanks! >>WP
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.