Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:32:55 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 08:17:11, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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. the short measuring time will have some influence. BUS speed is not holy. It *must* improve latency. Until you manage to proof that something improves latency, you won't find any speed diffs with shredder using the same cpu, i'm sure of that. A faster bus speed doesn't mean a faster latency to memory automatically. Only in general it means that. Also, you overclock your hardware just too much. I'm sure that the 1 week garantuee you give at it is sometimes not even covering your ****, as it will be broken after 6 days or so :)
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.