Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 12:02:46 08/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2004 at 10:04:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>Are you saying that Anandtech's measurements are not real data? > >I am saying I have no idea what they are reporting. I haven't read it and don't >really care... Oh, that's grand. You say things like: "I hate to cloud all the disinformation here with real data" and "It took a good bit of time to get a company to help me run the test. I didn't do it 'lightly'. Unlike most of your tests..." You call Anandtech's and my data disinformation, and that we ran the tests 'lightly' (whatever that means), and in the same breath you say that you can't be bothered to even look at or care about the data. That's terrific, you have no moral qualms about badmouthing data that you haven't even looked at. That's real first-class behavior. As for your wonderful "real data," I thought of an explanation for it that also agrees with my data, namely, most of the cache misses are warming the cache for each new position. If you calculate the cache misses per node after the cache is already warmed up (using the method I suggested) you'd have an idea of how much memory Crafty when it's in the middle of a search. -Tom
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.