Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 23:12:58 07/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2004 at 19:39:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 17, 2004 at 17:15:15, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On July 17, 2004 at 16:18:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>The correct number is around 45%, gcc 32 bit vs gcc 64 bit, or msvc 32 bit vs >>>msvc 64 bit. I believe AMD has already published these numbers in fact... >> >>...which is still higher than the 1.4 :) >> >>>And Microsoft's compiler is at _least_ 10% faster than GCC. More can be said by >>>Eugene if he wants... >>> >>>I was simply pointing out that there was absolutely no way a quad is 4x faster >>>than a 1-cpu box. >> >>Actually there is, if you use a quad 2.4 GHz against a single at 2.0 GHz :) >> >>-S. > > >Nope. Again, going over the math. > >First, assume that the 2.4ghz machine runs like a 2.2ghz box due to the missing >NUMA kernel. My testing shows that the 2.2ghz box searched one position at >2.07M nodes per second (1 cpu) where the 2.4ghz searched the same position at >2.1M nodes per second, almost identical. Missing NUMA kernal and bad compilers, that all software issues. So according to you...: "That's not my problem. IE he ran on a 64 bit processor. So _hardware_ advantage is easy to compute. If he didn't compile it correctly, there's little I can do about that. But the raw _hardware_ advantage is easy to compute. " :) -S.
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.