Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 04:35:47 02/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2005 at 21:47:06, Bryan Hofmann wrote: >On February 21, 2005 at 23:45:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 21, 2005 at 21:08:05, Bryan Hofmann wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 2005 at 19:56:51, Peter Skinner wrote: >>> >>>>On February 20, 2005 at 14:48:24, mike schoonover wrote: >>>> >>>>>hi all, >>>>>been noticing this problem for a while with crafty. >>>>>exits in ics mode quite freaquently. >>>>>more with the newer ones. >>>>>see:http://wbforum.volker-pittlik.name/viewtopic.php?t=1680 >>>>>it is not compile pessific. >>>>>just wondering,is this a crafty or wb problem. >>>>>help appreciated. >>>>>regards >>>>>mike >>>> >>>>I read your post on the wb forums, and the replies by Bryan Hoffman. >>>> >>>>I decided to test his version vs mine on the same computer, as I haven't done it >>>>in a while. Here are the results: >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>unable to open book file [./book.bin]. >>>>book is disabled >>>>unable to open book file [./books.bin]. >>>>hash table memory = 24M bytes. >>>>pawn hash table memory = 6M bytes. >>>> >>>>Crafty v19.19 BH >>>> >>>>White(1): bench >>>>Running benchmark. . . >>>>...... >>>>Total nodes: 89729038 >>>>Raw nodes per second: 766914 >>>>Total elapsed time: 117 >>>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 5.470085 >>>>White(1): >>>> >>>>EPD Kit revision date: 1996.04.21 >>>>unable to open book file [./book.bin]. >>>>book is disabled >>>>unable to open book file [./books.bin]. >>>>hash table memory = 24M bytes. >>>>pawn hash table memory = 6M bytes. >>>> >>>>Crafty v19.19 (1 cpus) >>>> >>>>White(1): bench >>>>Running benchmark. . . >>>>...... >>>>Total nodes: 89729038 >>>>Raw nodes per second: 787096 >>>>Total elapsed time: 114 >>>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 5.614035 >>>>White(1): >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>>Mine still seems slightly faster, and is the default compile with VC++ 2005 >>>>Express. >>>> >>>>Using these options: >>>> >>>>cl /Ox /O2 /GL /Gs /GA /GF /GT /Gr /MT /w /DNT_i386 /DWIN32 /D_CONSOLE /DWINDOWS >>>>/DFAST /DEGTB6 /DEPD /DFUTILITY /DVC_INLINE_ASM crafty.obj egtb.obj >>>> >>>>Peter >>> >>>I find this hard to believe as I just ran your compile vs my compile on two >>>different systems and Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz and a AMD 3000+ XP system. I'm >>>using the full VC 2005 with POGO. The largest difference is in the AMD and I >>>sure this is due to the POGO is being done on the AMD system. >>> >>> >>>AMD 3000+ XP >>> >>>Skinners >>>Crafty v19.19 >>> >>>White(1): ben >>>Running benchmark. . . >>>...... >>>Total nodes: 96761642 >>>Raw nodes per second: 1256644 >>>Total elapsed time: 77 >>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 8.311688 >>>White(1): quit >>> >>>Crafty v19.19 BH >>> >>>White(1): ben >>>Running benchmark. . . >>>...... >>>Total nodes: 96761642 >>>Raw nodes per second: 1362840 >>>Total elapsed time: 71 >>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 9.014085 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Pentium 4 2.8GHz >>> >>>Skinners >>>EPD Kit revision date: 1996.04.21 >>>unable to open book file [./book.bin]. >>>book is disabled >>>unable to open book file [./books.bin] >>> >>>Crafty v19.19 >>> >>>White(1): ben >>>Running benchmark. . . >>>...... >>>Total nodes: 96761642 >>>Raw nodes per second: 1018543 >>>Total elapsed time: 95 >>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 6.736842 >>>White(1): quit >>> >>>Mine >>>unable to open book file [./book.bin]. >>>book is disabled >>>unable to open book file [./books.bin] >>> >>>Crafty v19.19 BH >>> >>>White(1): ben >>>Running benchmark. . . >>>...... >>>Total nodes: 96761642 >>>Raw nodes per second: 1063314 >>>Total elapsed time: 91 >>>SMP time-to-ply measurement: 7.032967 >>>White(1): >> >> >>Hate to tell you guys, but you are all pissin' in the wind. :) > >Doubtful but you are allowed to have your view. >> >>optimizations change from one processor to another, and I am not just talking >>about AMD vs Intel. Different memory timing, different cache size/timing, >>different memory latency, different processor timings, the list goes on and on, >>and each can affect the speed of the program sporadically and unpredictably. >>Even poor memory/cache aliasing can make the same executable vary in speed >>significantly from one day to the next on the same processor. >> >>Benchmarking and optimizing is not a "compile one time, run one test, and look >>at the results". It is a "compile once, run a bunch of tests, then clear memory >>and run the same thing again. Multiple times... Whether you average or use the >>best/worst/typical result is up to you, but there are too many variables for one >>person to compile and think "this is the best there is". There are even >>compiler and optimizer differences to contend with beyond hardware difference... > >This is exactly what I have done time and time again with my compiles. I take it >a step futher in that I have forced inlined some functions to attain a quicker >compile and tested and both Intel and AMD platforms and had others test the >compiles. All have pointed to one thing, the compiles I produce are faster then >any of the others out there on a windows platform. You can only make that claim for the specific machines you have tested on. That was my point. If you haven't seen the memory/cache aliasing problem show up, you have just been lucky. It is there...
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.