Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:24:22 12/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2003 at 15:20:53, Slater Wold wrote: >On December 03, 2003 at 14:59:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>The other day, someone was discussing WAC. As I have been working on the >>quad-opteron machine at AMD, I took some time to run WAC three times, one >>for 1 second per position, one for 5 and one for 10. The results: >> >>===================== 1 seconds per position======================== >>test results summary: >> >>total positions searched.......... 300 >>number right...................... 297 >>number wrong...................... 3 >>percentage right.................. 99 >>percentage wrong.................. 1 >>total nodes searched.............. 111851199 >>average search depth.............. 4.5 >>nodes per second.................. 6072269 >> >>===================== 5 seconds per position======================== >>test results summary: >> >>total positions searched.......... 300 >>number right...................... 298 >>number wrong...................... 2 >>percentage right.................. 99 >>percentage wrong.................. 0 >>total nodes searched.............. 320786849 >>average search depth.............. 5.6 >>nodes per second.................. 6299702 >> >>=====================10 seconds per position======================== >>test results summary: >> >>total positions searched.......... 300 >>number right...................... 299 >>number wrong...................... 1 >>percentage right.................. 99 >>percentage wrong.................. 0 >>total nodes searched.............. 259379471 >>average search depth.............. 4.6 >>nodes per second.................. 6369720 >> >>Benchmark: >> >>Crafty v19.7 (4 cpus) >> >>White(1): mt=4 >>max threads set to 4 >>White(1): bench >>Running benchmark. . . >>...... >>Total nodes: 109241860 >>Raw nodes per second: 6068992 >>Total elapsed time: 18 >>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 35.555556 >>White(1): >> >>That now includes the inline FirstOne()/LastOne()/PopCnt() 64 bit code I >>wrote. It is about 4-5% faster. I have not written the attack stuff yet >>but I suppose I might bite the bullet to see what happens... > >Might want to think about making the bench test a little longer too. 18 seconds >to complete. LOL > >And, I *REALLY* hope you're planning to use that machine at CCT6! One vote yes. one vote no. :) The problem is if I make it longer, then it will crawl on slower machines. Probably there is no good benchmark to span pentium-133 thru this beast. :)
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.