Author: Brian Richardson
Date: 16:24:12 12/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2003 at 18:38:03, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 20:22:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 16:12:46, Brian Richardson wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 2003 at 09:52:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 08, 2003 at 20:59:26, Slater Wold wrote: >>>> >>> >>>snipped >>> >>>>>Ok, that's the itanium doing 32. Anyone got anything with it doing 64? Or did >>>>>it suck there too? >>>> >>>> >>>>The original was not very good. Itanium-2 (Mckinley) is _very_ good. Close >>>>to the opteron even though it is clocked at 1/2 the opteron's speed. >>> >>>Actually, McKinley was also pretty poor, IIRC. I had emailed Bob some Crafty >>>bench command test results. Now the 3rd generation Madison is much better. >> >> >>Eugene was close to 1M nodes per second at 1ghz. I don't think I have his >>numbers immediately handy but he might supply them again... > >I don't remember exact numbers, but on 1GHz Itanium2 (McKinley) Crafty got >something like 900-1000knps when executing "bench" command. Not great, but >reasonable good number. > >On 1.5GHz Itanium2 (Madison) Crafty is getting 1,357knps. > >If necessary I can send executable to Bob, so any volunteer can run his/her own >tests. > >Thanks, >Eugene The 900Knps was for 2 CPUs; 1 CPU was about 500Knps, according to the log files (note for Crafty 18.15, Intel compiler, no assembler, no profiling). Non-recompiled 32bit binary was _much_ slower, of course.
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.