Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:22:49 11/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2003 at 17:48:34, Tom Likens wrote: >On November 26, 2003 at 16:08:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 26, 2003 at 15:36:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On November 26, 2003 at 15:25:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>I have been working both with Eugene and AMD. The following bench run is >>>>on a quad 1.8ghz opteron, 8 gigs of ram. The only "option" I have set is >>>>"mt=4". There is _no_ assembly code in this version, pure C only. I am >>>>looking at updating the asm to 64 bit but that will take some time and >>>>studying. >>>> >>>>Meanwhile: >>>> >>>>Crafty v19.6 (1 cpus) >>>> >>>>White(1): mt=4 >>>>max threads set to 4 >>>>White(1): bench >>>>Running benchmark. . . >>>>...... >>>>Total nodes: 105863114 >>>>Raw nodes per second: 5881284 >>>>Total elapsed time: 18 >>>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 35.555556 >>>> >>>>This is using gcc, although I am not sure whether it is producing 64 bit >>>>or 32 bit code at the moment. However, 5.8M nps is not bad. About 1M less >>>>than Eugene's MSVC numbers. I will look into the 64 bit stuff more to see if >>>>gcc is producing real opteron assembly or not... And I will study the >>>>PGO options although the list time I tried them on GCC the compiler promptly >>>>crashed. :) >>>> >>>>Note that the above is with default hash and everything, no endgame tables, >>>>no opening book, etc... >>> >>>Could we see the numbers for 1,2,3 threads active also? >>>I would be interested to see how it scales. >> >> >>Sure. >> >>one processor: >> >>White(1): bench >>Running benchmark. . . >>...... >>Total nodes: 100409437 >>Raw nodes per second: 1498648 >>Total elapsed time: 67 >>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 9.552239 >> >> >>two processors: >> >>max threads set to 2 >>White(1): bench >>Running benchmark. . . >>...... >>Total nodes: 99562452 >>Raw nodes per second: 3017044 >>Total elapsed time: 33 >>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 19.393939 >> >>three processors: >> >>max threads set to 3 >>White(1): bench >>Running benchmark. . . >>...... >>Total nodes: 102543114 >>Raw nodes per second: 4458396 >>Total elapsed time: 23 >>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 27.826087 >> >>four processors: >> >>max threads set to 4 >>White(1): bench >>Running benchmark. . . >>...... >>Total nodes: 102606915 >>Raw nodes per second: 5700384 >>Total elapsed time: 18 >>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 35.555556 >> >> >>Let me note here that this is not a very NUMA-aware implementation, >>nowhere near as good as what we did (Eugene and I) for windows. I >>am going to look at the Linux NUMA library tonight and work on getting >>some of those features in, which should further push performance up. >> >>This is way better than 19.4, but it is not "all there" yet. Note also >>that there is no assembly language of any kind in this version, it is pure >>C. I plan on rectifying that _soon_. :) > >Sometimes Bob, you not only lift the bar for the rest of us, but you put it >in orbit ;-) > >I was thinking about entering CCT6 but I'm not sure there's much point! I would never suggest such an action. Remember, I competed with the likes of Belle even though it was much faster, and I won enough games to make it worthwhile... 4x opteron is not invincible, by any stretch. > >BTW, I finally received the AMD FX-51 and my preliminary tests under Windows >XP Pro (I'm loading Linux as I type) gives Djinn a (roughly) 4x speedup. >Unlike your test, I am including 32-bit inline assembly, but no 64-bit >assembly which should boost things nicely. I also intend to use profile >guided optimizations after I get Linux set up to see how that improves >things (hopefully, quite a bit since the Windows version was compiled >specifically for a P4 system). > >One caveat, so far I haven't been able to get the 64-bit version of SUSE 9.0 >to recognize my SATA hard-drives or my Promise controller. The 32-bit >version *does* recognize the components so that's what I'm loading to get >Linux on it initially. It's not too bad since I have my home directories >mounted on another machine via NFS, and intend to load the 64-bit version >of the OS when it works. > >More info as it becomes available. > >regards, >--tom
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.