Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 15:31:40 08/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2004 at 16:11:28, Peter Berger wrote: >First question was if the Crafty bench produced meaningful data. > >I decided to test this with crafty.rc's I'd use for a match. With the PIV3.2, >that has 1GB RAM this meant > >smpmt=1 >hash 384M >hashp 48M >cache 32M >noise 500000 >tbpath=C:\tbs >swindle off >computer >egtb >resign 6 >exit > >On the Athlon 64 3200+ I used half of this value for hash and hashp as it has >only 512 MB RAM. > >To also answer Gerd's theory ( although HT was disabled in previous test) I did >another run with smpt=2 on the PIV. > >And to Bob: a 64 bit executable would be of limitted use for me - also if you >first had to lose 20% only to recover it with the 64bit compile .. :) > >Test was done with the crafty 19.15 SE executable provided by Mike Byrne. > >quick.epd (60s) > > Athlon 64 PIV3.2(mt=1) PIV3.2(mt=2) > >#1 11/- 932314 11/- 1094865 11/- >#2 13/- 1231821 13/- 1446202 13/- >#3 16/+ 1305247 17/+ 1587329 15/+ >#4 13/- 822912 13/- 1084778 13/- >#5 13/+ 1004094 12/+ 1221268 12/+ >#6 14/+ 961920 14/+ 1127484 14/+ >#7 13/+ 1195035 13/+ 1374959 13/+ >#8 15/- 1069003 15/- 1244538 15/- >#9 12/+ 806188 13/+ 1045365 11/+ >#10 12/- 937916 13/- 1182559 13/- >#11 11/- 962095 11/+ 1222099 11/+ >#12 12/- 749055 12/- 964936 12/- >#13 12/+ 1164411 12/+ 1422361 12/+ >#14 13/+ 1005028 14/+ 1209125 14/+ >#15 13/+ 1158575 13/+ 1380033 13/+ >#16 8/+ 629500 7/+ 719015 11/+ >#17 12/+ 875415 12/+ 1134823 12/+ >#18 13/+ 957280 13/+ 1202340 13/+ >#19 14/+ 1174810 14/+ 1348973 14/+ >#20 11/+ 744611 11/+ 960048 11/+ >#21 10/+ 744877 11/+ 949471 11/+ >#22 14/+ 1151032 15/+ 1348936 14/+ >#23 12/+ 1094375 12/+ 1341502 12/+ >#24 15/+ 1090312 15/+ 1296615 15/+ > >Avg+Sol 12.58/17 990326 12.75/18 1204568 12.71/18 > > >The format here is depth reached, solved, Nodes/s. The result shows that the PIV >is indeed about 20% faster with this executable. > >HT doesn't provide a benefit. > >The results with the ECMGCP testsuite confirm both findings: > > >ECMGCP (10s) > >1 s 56/183 59/183 57/183 >2 s 75 83 77 >5 s 101 107 106 >10s 123 126 126 > >So the benches produce reasonable results, and Bryan Hoffman's explanation looks >like a good guess: maybe Mike's executable just sucks on the Athlon64 ? > >Previous bench results with the SE executable (hash 48M, hashp 12M, nothing >else): > >Athlon 64 : "Mike's" Crafty 19.15 Total nodes: 58028353 1115929 > 52 12.307692 >PIV 3.2 : "Mike's" Crafty 19.15 Total nodes: 58028353 Raw nodes/s:1349496 >Time:43 14.884 > >Now I added Dann Corbit's executable to the test: > >Athlon 64: "Dann's" Crafty 19.15 Total nodes: 63988715 Raw nodes/s:1361462 >Time:47 13.617 I guess you have an Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 Ghz, NOT 2.2Ghz. That would explain everything. Here are the results (19.15 Dann,48M hash) for Athlon XP 2.4Ghz and 2.5Ghz: Total nodes: 63988715 Raw nodes per second: 1421971 Total elapsed time: 45 SMP time-to-ply measurement: 14.222222 Total nodes: 63988715 Raw nodes per second: 1488109 Total elapsed time: 43 SMP time-to-ply measurement: 14.883721 An Athlon 64 3200+ 2.2 Ghz should get about 1.5M N/s with this 32-bit executable. Michael > > >I actually did some more tests, but I am too tired, so just the conclusions. >Basically Mike's executable is just great for the PIV but bad for the Athlon. >The PIV is a little faster anyway but it is in the region below 10%. > >Peter
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.