Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 13:35:04 11/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2003 at 16:26:15, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. I have the impression from previous discussions that GCC making slower executables has more to do with philosophical approach than to experience on architecture. MH > >>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.