Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 11:51:42 02/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2004 at 12:12:19, Slater Wold wrote: >On February 11, 2004 at 05:01:33, enrico carrisco wrote: > >>On February 11, 2004 at 02:17:46, Slater Wold wrote: >> >>>On February 11, 2004 at 02:14:41, enrico carrisco wrote: >>> >>>>On February 11, 2004 at 00:46:02, Slater Wold wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 10, 2004 at 23:42:02, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 10, 2004 at 13:00:34, Bryan Hofmann wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Here are the results of the different compiled version of Crafty. Your's is just >>>>>>>a hair (1.4%) faster then all of the others. >>>>>> >>>>>>Give these two a try and see how they do on your system. I compiled them with >>>>>>MSVC .NET 2003. They were a hair faster than Aaron's on my Athlon 2400+ (after >>>>>>hours of tinkering with compiler options). >>>>>> >>>>>>Without FUTILITY: >>>>>>http://home.comcast.net/~r.reagan/crafty19.10.zip >>>>>> >>>>>>With FUTILITY: >>>>>>http://home.comcast.net/~r.reagan/crafty19.10f.zip >>>>> >>>>>Aaron's: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Crafty v19.10 >>>>> >>>>>White(1): bench >>>>>Running benchmark. . . >>>>>...... >>>>>Total nodes: 102625951 >>>>>Raw nodes per second: 1603530 >>>>>Total elapsed time: 64 >>>>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 10.000000 >>>>>White(1): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Russell's: >>>>> >>>>>C:\crafty>crafty19.10f >>>>>unable to open book file [./book.bin]. >>>>>book is disabled >>>>>found computer opening book file [./bookc.bin]. >>>>> >>>>>Crafty v19.10 >>>>> >>>>>White(1): bench >>>>>Running benchmark. . . >>>>>...... >>>>>Total nodes: 89942714 >>>>>Raw nodes per second: 1697032 >>>>>Total elapsed time: 53 >>>>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 12.075472 >>>> >>>>This can't be the FX system.. What did you run this on? >>>> >>>>-elc. >>> >>>LOL - My FX51 @ 2.4Ghz... >>> >>>I promise. >> >>Did new additions to Crafty slow down its nps? Mid 19.xx's I was at 1.65m on >>the XP @ 2.5GHz. I'll have to ask Aaron what his box runs his executeable at, >>to compare with your results (for 19.10) >> >>-elc. > >We've already established that the FX51 @ 2.4Ghz is only 4% faster than his >XP2.5Ghz. It was my understanding that when you were 4% faster you were still at stock or near stock speed of the FX (2.2GHz). In my tests -- Hiarcs has shown a 19-20% increase on AMD 64-bit even though it has no optimizations. (This, of course, is clock for clock, vs. Athlon XPs.) Essentially, 2.2GHz FX/Opteron = 2.618GHz Athlon XP (at the minimum) for Hiarcs. The tests I ran were on an Opteron 246 and the XP also at 2GHz. I'll have to get in touch with Aaron and see what his take is on all of this. I can't imagine an unoptimized Hiarcs to be drastically different than an unoptimized Crafty -- when comparing their 32-bit performance. -elc.
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.