Author: Brian Richardson
Date: 14:14:26 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 15:36:49, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >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 You (and Bob) are correct that there is not much of a nps difference between versions 18.15 and 19.05(06). I was thinking of other version differences that were larger. In any case, might you be running with a "superior compiler" that the rest of us don't have ready access to :)
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.