Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:31:48 05/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2004 at 17:21:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 24, 2004 at 15:04:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 24, 2004 at 14:48:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On May 24, 2004 at 14:37:06, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>On May 24, 2004 at 14:32:38, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 24, 2004 at 14:09:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 24, 2004 at 12:56:56, Slater Wold wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 24, 2004 at 12:29:04, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 24, 2004 at 12:06:46, Slater Wold wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In a thread below, there is a post about Blargh, ICCs top computer. It has won >>>>>>>>>60% of its games at standard time controls, and only lost 16% in almost 3,000 >>>>>>>>>games! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I am interested to know the OoO (opinion of outcome) of EVERYONE at the >>>>>>>>>following experiment, I will be in contact with the operator of Blargh, and will >>>>>>>>>try to set this up. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Crafty 19.13 on an AMD FX53 (64-bit) vs Shredder 8 on a Dual Opteron 2.2Ghz >>>>>>>>>(32-bit) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>10 game match. 120/0. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Opinions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Crafty on equal hardware probably doesn't stand a realistic chance against >>>>>>>>Shredder. Only Fritz scores at least 45% against Shredder on the latest SSDF. >>>>>>>>Junior and Hiarcs score at least 40%. Crafty would be behind those engines on >>>>>>>>equal hardware by a non-trivial margin (take the Junior-Crafty 10x experiment >>>>>>>>for example). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>OoO please... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What is interesting about a Shredder-Crafty match where Crafty is at a hardware >>>>>>>>_disadvantage_? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>BTW, that really explains a lot about why he is #1 on ICC. You have a freakin' >>>>>>>>FX53 and you're at a hardware disadvantage! Wow... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's a disadvantage, but a small one. How small? >>>>>> >>>>>>It is at least 2x disadvantage. >>>>>> >>>>>>You did notice that box is a _dual_??? >>>>>> >>>>>>Shredder has an SMP version which I would assume he is using... >>>>> >>>>>Comeon you need to be NUMA to run well on a dual opteron in 32 bits. Shredder is >>>>>SMP and has not released a 64 bits executable yet for xp64. >>>> >>>>A point not everyone is getting, obviously... >>> >>>Yes, shredder is missing a factor 3 somewhere thanks to this. >>> >>>It's faster single cpu A64 in 64 bits than dual Xeon 3.2Ghz >>> >>>single cpu net2003 default compile 32 bits, latest diep version 45% faster at >>>2.2Ghz opteron than 2.127Ghz K7. >>> >>>So single cpu version 135k nps (both numa & smp version) >>>NUMA version scales factor 2.0, SMP version from diep gets 180k nps >>>at dual opteron 2.2Ghz. This all in 32 bits mode. SMP version might suffer >>>though from fact that dual machine has not all banks filled with RAM yet. >>> >>>I hope later today to have a go at 64 bits XP (if i can get it to work there so >>>soon, no clue how to lock in 64 bits XP). >>> >>>Shredder and DIEP, in contradiction to crafty, do a lot of RAM lookups. >>> >>>So NUMA versus SMP is a bigger penalty. >>> >>>Based upon hard facts extrapolation for shredder at dual opteron in 32 bits >>>means : 1.5 * 1.45 = 2.175 times faster in nps. >>> >>>Crafty 32 bits executable (version 19.3 was only one i found so quick at his >>>ftp) at bob's ftp gets 770k nps at 2.2Ghz opteron. >> >>Please do not make up numbers when actual 2.2ghz opteron log files are available >>on my ftp box. Crafty gets 2M on a 2.2ghz opteron, period... > >Windows executable at your ftp in 32 bits gets 770k. period. Strange nobody _else_ gets such an incredibly slow number. Could it be that once again your imagination is over-active? Can someone _else_ (slate has an FX53 I think) run the 32 bit executable to see if it is _really_ that slow? That 64 bit speeds me up by more than 2x, something you have _always_ said will never happen. You have to pick a position and stick with it, otherwise you get caught (again) on _both_ sides of the fence, which is physically impossible... At least for _most_ of us. Any reliable testers want to try this???? > >> >>> >>>Is it in nps more than 2 times faster at opteron in 64 bits than this? >> >>See above and check the log files for yourself. And 32 bit crafty doesn't do >>770K nodes per second. That is slower than a single 2.4ghz xeon, much less my >>2.8's and beyond... that's a bogus number. > >Then you basically say that your ftp site has worthless executables. No. I "basically say" that you are unqualified to test a mouse-trap, much less do any unbiased testing on _my_ program. You _do_ remember your "your program doesn't produce _any_ speedup at my dual K7" don't you? Utter nonsense as several others have proven... > >Oh by the way it doesn't compile SMP under windows at all. > >Seems i'm one of the few who now and then compile your achillesheel.... > I only have two "achilles heels". Both real close to my ankles... >> >>> >>>If so then having a native 64 bits compile for opteron has more effect than a >>>dual opteron in 32 bits mode for that exe. >>> >>>>>Equal hardware SSDF shredder8-crafty : 43.5 - 3.5 >>>> >>>>I was going to look that up later, thanks! >>>> >>>>So we can expect in a 10 game match, nothing better than 9 - 1 from Crafty, >>>>based on SSDF results. Interesting... >>> >>>more like 10-0 >>> >>>Just use a book that is not committing suicide for shredder. >>> >>>Faster hardware shredder extrapolates its rating better than crafty. >>> >>>Of course do not forget to use book.bin for crafty and no commercial books.
This page took 0.01 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.