Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 05:17:11 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2004 at 21:45:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 08, 2004 at 18:12:42, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On February 08, 2004 at 17:21:57, Ingo Bauer wrote: >> >>>Hi >>> >>>> >>>>Shredder8Mark: >>>> >>>>Athlon XP 2.5GHz / 218fsb(436DDR): >>>>64mb hash : 504kn/s - 3712 Shredder8Mark >>>>409mb hash: 334kn/s - 2227 Shredder8Mark >>>> >>>>Athlon XP 2.5GHz / 200fsb(400DDR): >>>>64mb hash : 503kn/s - 3712 Shredder8Mark >>>>409mb hash: 309kn/s - 2227 Shredder8Mark >>>> >>>>Athlon XP 2.5GHz / 166fsb(333DDR): >>>>64mb hash : 476kn/s - 3712 Shredder8Mark >>>>409mb hash: 263kn/s - 1856 Shredder8Mark >>>> >>>>I'm impressed.. going from 166 to 218 resulted in a 27% increase in kn/s. Way >>>>back in the day when I tested Crafty it showed no increase in kn/s from changes >>>>in bus speeds (latency or memory bandwidth). Interesting... Looks like my next >>>>system will be a freon cooled Athlon FX running over 3GHz and 300fsb >>> >>>Dont trust this Shreddermark! >>> >>>Check the same thing with a Fritzmark and/or Crafty. Somethings wrong weith that >>>Shreddermark. >>> >>>Ingo >> >>I suspected the same.. so.. I did a few tests. The test was done using infinite >>analysis from the start position. The ply next to the name of the engine is >>where I took the total node count and divided it by the time to ply. >>Here are the results: >> >>Athlon XP 2.5GHz and 384mb hash for all engines: >> >>Shredder 8 @ 18 ply: >>218fsb: 409kn/s >>166fsb: 409kn/s >> >>X3D Fritz @ 15 ply: >>218fsb: 1116.9kn/s >>166fsb: 1116.9kn/s >> >>Hiarcs 9 @ 13 ply: >>218fsb: 275.35kn/s >>166fsb: 269.23kn/s >> >>Junior 8 @ 17 ply: >>218fsb: 1999.54kn/s >>166fsb: 1987.98kn/s >> >>Deep Fritz 7 @ 15 ply: >>218fsb: 1144.69kn/s >>166fsb: 1129.83kn/s >> >>As you can see a higher fsb (and lower latency) did next to nothing. >>ShredderMark definitely has some problems. > >Not at all. Shreddermark has NO problems. > >Shredder like DIEP just uses your RAM more efficient than Fritz&co, however >unlike DIEP, shredder is doing it at a way higher nps than DIEP. > >That means that the number of random accesses to the RAM is really a lot bigger >than it is for Fritz&co. > >I fully understand this from Shredder and i fear the day already that processors >get a lot faster without having a L3 cache of say 64MB :) Do you not see that Shredder got absolutely *NO* increase in kn/s from a 30%+ increase in bus speed? In the real world Shredder gets no increase.. in ShredderMark it shows odd results and increases.. probably due to GUI overhead (spending more time switching to various positions rather than searching a position) and poor timer code.
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.