Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:54:47 12/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2003 at 16:30:00, Slater Wold wrote: >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?! ;) There are faster dual xeons than mine on ICC. And dual AMDs as well, including more than one dual opteron I have seen... But if AMD says "OK" I'll try to send them a couple of DVDs with 3-4-5 endgame tables and give it a try... > >>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.