Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:43:54 09/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 1999 at 07:23:25, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >On September 14, 1999 at 22:43:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >> >>Here is an interesting WAC run for the currently released version 16.18, >>run on a 21264 alpha (667mhz, nothing top-secret): >> >> 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 >> +------------------------------------------------------------ >> 1 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> 2 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> 3 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 >> 4 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 >> 5 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 >> 6 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> 7 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> 8 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> 9 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 >>10 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 >>11 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>12 | 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 >>13 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 >>14 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>15 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>16 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 >>17 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 >>18 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>19 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>20 | 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 >> >>The results are in order by column. positions 1-20 are in column 1, 21-40 >>are in column 2, etc. Max time limit was 60 seconds. This is the first run >>I have done where it got all 300 correct on a single-cpu machine. If we drop >>the time limit to 30 secs/position, it misses number 100 and 230, for a total >>of 298. If we drop the time to 10 secs, same result. If we drop this to 5 >>secs, it drops to 297. >> >>Obviously this box like crafty and vice-versa. :) >> >>Here is the summary from the end of the test: >> >>total positions searched.......... 300 >>number right...................... 300 >>number wrong...................... 0 >>percentage right.................. 100 >>percentage wrong.................. 0 >>total nodes searched.............. 236973211.0 >>average search depth.............. 4.5 >>nodes per second.................. 783641 >> >> >>not bad, almost 800K on one cpu. Can you guess how the 1ghz and beyond >>versions will run? And don't forget SMP as this is just one cpu. Pretty >>amazing boxes, those alphas... > >What about the cost difference between a quad-xeon 450 and 21264-one processor ? > and between a 8way-xeon 450 and 21264-two processors >? > >The 2 systems got approximatively the same NPS for crafty ... I haven't looked at pricing for the alpha, but the quad xeon (400, not 450) cost me about $11,000. The 8-way is about 80,000 with 8 cpus. I wouldn't be surprised to find the 21264 priced similar to the quad, but I am certain that the dual alpha is way cheaper than the 8-way xeon...
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.