Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 16:20:52 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! Look at the brutus game today. I'm sure it was worth it for List on standard hardware to participate even when "outgunned". These are the most fun games to see. Don't deprive the fans of some good games. Great underdog perrformances are what make the fun. Regards, Matt > >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.