Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:22:04 06/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2004 at 21:06:51, Jeremiah Penery wrote: chessprograms in general do not profit going from 512KB to 1MB. Crafty doesn't either. www.aceshardware.com proves it doesn't matter for diep either. >On June 15, 2004 at 06:33:57, David Mitchell wrote: > >>Crafty is so cache-stingy, it might not make a big difference, but I'd be amazed >>if a program like TSCP, wouldn't see a sizeable difference if the L2 cache size >>was doubled. > >TSCP probably fits in any processor's L2 cache, and even the L1 cache of >Athlons. So increasing L2 cache size won't help it at all. Crafty should enjoy >at least some benefit from increasing the cache size (up to 1MB, or perhaps >more). > >>Of course, I've been amazed before, and nothing beats a little testing - all >>theories aside, you see the darndest results! > >The reason that increasing cache size doesn't increase the speed of chess >programs is that almost all the memory accesses in a chess program are hash >probes, which will cause cache miss and must go to main memory, which is very >much slower. >If you make the hash table small enough to fit inside the cache, then maybe you >will see some benefit in terms of NPS from making cache bigger (because you can >increase hash table size and still be in cache), but your time to solution will >go up also with the smaller hash table.
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.