Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:02:53 06/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2004 at 13:15:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On June 30, 2004 at 13:13:19, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On June 30, 2004 at 13:08:48, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On June 30, 2004 at 13:06:24, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>On June 30, 2004 at 12:57:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hello, >>>>> >>>>>For diep moving from 32 to 64 bits is not so interesting. But the 8==>16 >>>>>registers is. >>>>> >>>>>All tested with same diep version : >>>>> >>>>>at windows 64 bits : >>>>> >>>>>net2003 32 bits : 135k nps >>>>>amd SDK 64 bits : 130k nps >>>>>gcc 3.4 32 bits : 130k nps (with pgo) >>>>> >>>>>at linux (gentoo) 64 bits : >>>>>gcc 3.3.3 64 bits : 140k nps >>>>> >>>>>So it's trivial that moving from 8 to 16 registers increased it by 10k nps, >>>>>despite also losing to larger instruction sizes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>If you had gone with bitboards, you would have seen a 47% increase. >>> >>>Which would have been no help if it had slowed him down 47% in 32 bit mode to >>>begin with. >> >> >>Do you think bitboards are that much slower on 32 bit machines? > >As proven 2 years ago clearly by me it is 2 times slower. The only thing you have ever proven is ... Well, everyone _knows_ what you have proven. And it has nothing to do with bitboards... You can't _possibly_ prove bitboards are 2x slower. Because they aren't. > >Diep generates at 32 bits exactly 2 times faster than crafty. >Tested at K7. At P4 difference is bigger though. So? Are we racing to generate moves or to play chess. Bitboards help in other places. For example, let's have a race to generate _only_ captures on the board, no non-captures at all. Be an interesting test since that is what happens in > 50% of the positions... > >> >>> >>>-- >>>GCP
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.