Author: Slater Wold
Date: 13:30:00 12/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2003 at 16:24:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. :) Well, my point of view is, you're showing up with more HW than anyone else regardless. If that's the case, why not show up with a monster?! ;) >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. :) Just make it detect if CPUs > 2 then make the bench longer. If you can detect a difference between SMP & NUMA, I know you can do that! :) Imagine the bench command on the 16-way. The CPUs won't even be able to spin-up to 100%!! LOL Total elapsed time: 5
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.