Author: Premraj Natarajan
Date: 10:22:45 11/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2005 at 10:57:35, Gregory Owett wrote: >Recently, I launched two tournaments (ponder off) with the same participants, on >two different machines. Here results: > >On P4 2.2 T=15'+5" : > >1. Fruit 2.2.1 KS104 7,5 / 10 >2. Shredder 9 UCI 5,5 >3. Shredder 7.04 CLm1 5 25,00 >4. Fruit 2.2.1 Uri 5 23,00 >5. Shredder 8 CLD 3,5 17,25 >6. Fruit 2.2.1 3,5 16,50 > > >On AMD x2 dual core 4800+ T=15'+5" : > >1. Shredder 8 CLD 6,5 / 10 >2. Fruit 2.2.1 Uri 6 >3. Fruit 2.2.1 KS104 5 25,75 >4. Fruit 2.2.1 5 24,25 >5. Shredder 9 UCI 4,5 >6. Shredder 7.04 CLm1 3 > > >The success of Shredder 8 CLD (UCI) on the dual core machine, confirms what the >task manager indicated, i.e. which Shredder 8 CLD, in spite of it is >single-threaded engine, used 99% of the two processors, while all the others >used 50%, in other words, only one processor. > >(Native engines, as F8, J9, H9, CT15 etc...use 99% too.) > >Peter Kasinski thinks that Windows task manager is confused and carryforwards >incorrectly. > >Is there another explanation? > >Gregory It is true that Shredder 8 isnot Deep engine that doesnot mean it is single threaded engine while it is using 2 threads, Shredder 8 is itself a Deep engine or u might call it multi threaded so we find shredder 8 would have been running 2 times faster in dual core and hence played better. Prem
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.