Author: Slater Wold
Date: 13:35:46 12/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2003 at 16:25:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 03, 2003 at 15:08:59, Matthew Hull 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... >> >> >>Holy smokes. Is this still gcc and no profiling? >> >>MH > > >yes. gcc + profiling dies an ugly (and noisy) death, complaining about >corrupted branch probability files. I've given up temporarily on getting >that to work... What happens if you try to profile with 'mt 1'? A while back I had the Intel compiler bitch at me because of SMP profiling. So I just profiled with 'mt 1' and everything worked fine. Still got a kick ass speedup too. >I am looking at other optimizations however, so it might go a bit faster >if I am lucky. > >remember that this is a quad 1.8ghz opteron. 2.2's are around. And there >are also 8-way and beyond boxes as well. :) What's the speedup between 1, 2, and 4 CPUs? Any idea on the speedup of going to 64-bit? I know a 2x2.0Ghz Opteron system, 32-bit does around 2.2M on 19.4.
This page took 0.01 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.