Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:26:15 11/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2003 at 15:55:10, Russell Reagan wrote: >In this thread: > >http://www.chess-archive.com/ccc.php?art_id=310212 > >Gian-Carlo Pascutto reported that his program, Deep Sjeng (compiled for 64-bit >hardware), ran 70% faster on an Opteron, clock for clock. As far as I know, Deep >Sjeng is not bitboard based. > >In this thread: > >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?325912 > >Eugene Nalimov reports that Crafy (compiled for 64-bit hardware) gets 1,761,569 >nps on a 1.8GHz Opteron. On my 2GHz Athlon, Crafty gets 1,230,931 nps. > >(2.0 / 1.8) x 1,761,569 = about 1,957,298 nps on a 2GHz Opteron > >So, clock for clock, Crafty is 1,957,298 / 1,230,931 = 1.59 times faster (60%) >on an Opteron, while Deep Sjeng was 70% faster. I suspect Eugene was using his >magic unreleased compiler also, which probably produces faster executables than >gcc. But that is speculation. I doubt if it creates faster executables than GCC for 64 bit systems. 64 bit GCC will be much more mature than MS VC++.NET for Win64, since there have been 64 bit systems around for years, and these often use GCC. Win64 is still beta. >So either Deep Sjeng is bitboard based, or the expected advantage that bitboard >engines were going to get that non-bitboard engines were not going to get does >not exist. Or I'm overlooking something else. > >Thoughts? My second thought is that it shows move generation is not the bottleneck in crafty. Probably, evaluation is also not dominating, since tons of bitboard math will be done there also.
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.