Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:27:39 08/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2005 at 21:52:53, Eelco de Groot wrote: >On August 24, 2005 at 14:50:46, Thomas Logan wrote: > >>On August 24, 2005 at 12:05:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On August 24, 2005 at 08:59:28, Thomas Logan wrote: >>> >>>>On August 24, 2005 at 08:47:33, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 24, 2005 at 08:20:25, Thomas Logan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Does anyone have scaling figures for various deep programs >>>>>> >>>>>>and systems with 2 dual core processors >>>>>> >>>>>>Tom >>>>> >>>>>hi, i just started a test at my k7 single cpu machine >>>>>to compare an output created at a quad dual core 1.8Ghz. >>>>> >>>>>The test is over 213 positiosn and statistical significant. >>>>> >>>>>I expect results within 2 weeks. >>>>> >>>>>You can calculate what time it takes 70 minutes * 213 positions. >>>>> >>>>>one thing already seems sure: >>>>> >>>>>x86-64 has no scaling problems with big hashtables, x86 has. >>>>> >>>>>Vincent >>>> >>>>Hello Vincent >>>> >>>>Thank you >>>> >>>>Are you using Diep ? >>>> >>>>Any knowledge concerning Fritz, Junior or Shredder >>>>Please post your results when obtained >>> >>>Shredder is scaling 3.3 at quad single core, so that'll be like scaling of 4 at >>>dual core quad or so? >>> >>>junior was single core and fritz will not be scaling well either (deepfritz8). >>> >>>We know all this already from 8 cpu Xeon machines in fact. See results donninger >>>posted once. >>> >>>If you don't run well at 8 cpu xeon then forget dual core. >>> >>So you believe Shreder scale fairly well on a quad >> >>But regarding Junior and Fritz I of course meant the deep versions of Junior and >>Fritz >> >>Any knowledge on these ? >> >>Thanks >> >>Tom > >Hello Thomas, > >I think what Vincent meant was that Junior played on a single core 4 processor >machine on the WCCC. Deep Junior, or it could not have used more than one >processor, but actually I have not read anywhere what kind of processor Amir and >Shay used, AMD or Intel? > >If I understand correctly, scaling involves the NPS numbers,which is not the >same as plydepths/timeunit, the actual speed-up? Actually this is a poor practice, but it is becoming common. Scaling actually refers to how well an application performs as the number of processors increases. With chess, NPS is one type of scaling, but it isn't the accurate number. The actual time-to-solution is the right way to measure scaling, because most programs can come pretty close to perfect NPS scaling, unless they run into NUMA issues they don't handle, but getting a reasonable speedup is another issue altogether... > >Kevin Burcham posted some interesting numbers for Deep Fritz above >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?444985 > >If you convert that back to nodes per core per MHz that would roughly get the >Fritz scaling numbers. > >Groeten, >Eelco
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.