Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 14:00:54 12/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 2005 at 16:51:10, Aaron Gordon wrote: >On December 07, 2005 at 16:39:16, Ed Murak wrote: > >>At http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?467829 you collated these >>results - >> >>... >>124651 = AMD Opteron 275, 2.2ghz, 32 bit (WIN x64) >>124651 = Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz 32 bit >>... >>110801 = Pentium-M 2.0GHz 32 bit >>110801 = Pentium 4, 3.6 ghz,560 Prescott, 32 bit (WIN/XP) >>110801 = Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz 32 bit >>... >> >>Does it not seem a little strange that the precisely, exactly same "nps" is >>reported for widely-differing CPUs (Athlon and Pentium 4 and Pentium M, say)? >> >>In just 17 results, 3+2=5 exact collisions with such big numbers involved is >>beyond a coincidence. >> >>Is there some granularity in the test that we don't know about? If not, is >>"nps" reported always inversely proportional to "time" reported, for the same >>initial conditions and 3988843 node count? If not, would "time" be a better >>measure? >> >>I > >It is possible time IS a better measure, but we had to collect the results as-is >to figure this out. :) > >It looks like it is just rounding to the nearest second. This would be ok for >longer runs (maybe 200 seconds?), but my PC took just over 15 seconds. This is a >bit of a difference I think, and would like to see more accurate results. Only >problem would be having everyone now re-run it and calculate the NPS by hand >from the time in ms and total node count. Now that you mention it, I get a diffrent value when I calculate form hand: info depth 14 time 32111 nodes 3988843 nps 128672 info time 32113 nodes 3988843 nps 128672 form hand:3988843/32.113 = 124212 nps ? - andy Athlon64 3400+ 2.4Ghz 512kb L2 cache
This page took 0.01 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.