Author: Peter Skinner
Date: 09:22:59 02/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2004 at 08:41:36, Mike Byrne wrote: >On February 07, 2004 at 08:39:42, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>On February 07, 2004 at 08:20:37, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>Comparison Win32 executables with identical Crafty.rc file for AMD 2000+ >>>processor: >>> >>>Skinner 3.2.2004: >>> >>>Crafty v19.10 >>> >>>White(1): bench >>>Running benchmark. . . >>>...... >>>Total nodes: 71227364 >>>Raw nodes per second: 962531 >>>Total elapsed time: 74 >>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 8.648649 >>>White(1): >>> >>>Byrne 2.2.2004: >>> >>>Crafty v19.10 >>> >>>White(1): bench >>>Running benchmark. . . >>>...... >>>Total nodes: 71227364 >>>Raw nodes per second: 890342 >>>Total elapsed time: 80 >>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 8.000000 >>>White(1): >>> >>>Corbit 4.2.2004: >>> >>>Crafty v19.10 >>> >>>White(1): bench >>>Running benchmark. . . >>>...... >>>Total nodes: 79723137 >>>Raw nodes per second: 937919 >>>Total elapsed time: 85 >>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 7.529412 >>>White(1): >>> >>>It seems Skinners executable is clearly the best for AMD computers. >>>Thanks to all for making them available. >>> >>>Michael >> >> >>Interestingly, the Byrne exectuable is faster on Skinner's computer than his >>own. I have rec'd an email from Peter stating this. >> >>================================================================ >>Windows XP Professional - 2.0Ghz Pentium 4 768 megs ram. >> >>Byrne Crafty PGO >>White(1): bench >>Running benchmark. . . >>...... >>Total nodes: 89942714 >>Raw nodes per second: 719541 >>Total elapsed time: 125 >>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 5.120000 >>White(1): >> >>Byrne Crafty SE >> >>White(1): bench >>Running benchmark. . . >>...... >>Total nodes: 89942714 >>Raw nodes per second: 795953 >>Total elapsed time: 113 >>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 5.663717 >>White(1): >> >>Peter's Crafty Compile >> >>White(1): bench >>Running benchmark. . . >>...... >>Total nodes: 89942714 >>Raw nodes per second: 719541 >>Total elapsed time: 125 >>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 5.120000 >>White(1): >>=============================================================== >> >>So it's back to the old adage -- "your mileage may vary". I think this also >>demostrates again that the AMD processors are usually better for chess than >>Intel P4 that run from 1.7 Ghz to at least 2.4 Ghz - I'm not sure about newer >>processors. > >BTw, for my p4 1.7 Ghz, I also get results similiar to Peter - about 10% faster >than his executable. Hi Mike, Yes when running the benchmark tests with a reboot between each one, yours indeed is faster than my compile. The odd thing is during play online I notice I _never_ seem to see it achieve 100% cpu, normally around 97%, where my exe nearly always gets 100%. I wonder what the difference is. Also in little test games here and online mine performs better than yours as others have pointed out as well. I am wondering if you have changed something in the evaluation that is hurting it. Peter.
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.