Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 12:36:49 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 13:44:59, Brian Richardson wrote: >On December 10, 2003 at 20:25:43, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On December 10, 2003 at 19:24:12, Brian Richardson wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Ok, I found 900MHz/1.5Mb cache system nearby. Here are the results: >> >>D:\Documents and Settings\eugenen>\\eugenen6\crafty\wcrafty.exe >> >>Initializing multiple threads. >>System is SMP, not NUMA. >>EPD Kit revision date: 1996.04.21 >>unable to open book file [./book.bin]. >>book is disabled >>unable to open book file [./books.bin]. >> >>Crafty v19.6 (1 cpus) >> >>White(1): bench >>Running benchmark. . . >>...... >>Total nodes: 100409437 >>Raw nodes per second: 749324 >>Total elapsed time: 134 >>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 4.776119 >>White(1): quit >> >>I expect 1GHz/3Mb cache system to be ~20% faster -- 10% due to higher frequency, >>and 10% due to larger cache (or higher cache associativity -- I reported effect >>of 1.5Mb cache vs. 3Mb cache here some time ago). 750knps*1.2 == 900knps, so it >>will be roughly the number I gave from memory... >> >>Thanks, >>Eugene > >And the version 18.15 results (19.6 was not out back in January)? I don't have old Crafty sources nearby, and cannot connect to UAB site (some configuration problems on MS campus). Bob already wrote that there should be no difference in nps, and 750knps on 900MHz/1.5Mb system agrees with 900-1000knps on 1GHz/3Mb system I gave from memory. It looks that you used inferior compiler... Thanks, Eugene
This page took 0.03 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.