Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 20:41:21 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 17:14:26, Brian Richardson wrote: >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 :) I am pretty sure that publicly available to all MSDN subscribers (as part of PSDK) 64-bit Microsoft compiler will generate decent code for Crafty. Maybe 10-12% slower than the latest one. That still should put Crafty on 1GHz Itanium2 into 800+ knps range when compiled with POGO. Thanks, Eugene
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.