Unfortunately as you can see there are as expected diminishing returns .
More likely will be AMD's move to a 6 way and Intel an 8 way chip . _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MarkK Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: Multi Core Optimization, L2 Cache & Optimization Run Times Next will be three or Four Quad cores With Four Quad cores this run would be done before you click on Optimize MarkK -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com] On Behalf Of Fred Tonetti Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: Multi Core Optimization, L2 Cache & Optimization Run Times It's a DUAL quad . ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com] On Behalf Of dloyer123 Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com Subject: [amibroker] Re: Multi Core Optimization, L2 Cache & Optimization Run Times This is a quad core? I am suprised that you continue to get improvment beyound 4. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> , Fred Tonetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here are some results I got with my new toy . > > This is using a reasonably complex system on ~500 symbols over 10 years i.e. > ~2500 bars ... > > > > Cores Time Percent > > > > 1 218 > > 2 114 52.29% > > 3 79 36.24% > > 4 62 28.44% > > 5 52 23.85% > > 6 46 21.10% > > 7 41 18.81% > > 8 37 16.97% > > > > As expected the higher you go the more overhead there is . but improvements > like this are still well worth the effort . Especially on a single box . > > > > > > _____ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf > Of Steve Dugas > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 7:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [amibroker] Multi Core Optimization, L2 Cache & Optimization > Run Times > > > > Very interesting Fred, thanks! This looks encouraging, at least for us EOD > guys. > > > > One thing I notice - at 32 tickers, it looks like the curve has "recovered" > to what you might expect to see even if there was no dent at 16. And also, > after 32 the curve seems to get a second wind, i.e. it "inverts" and the > time per symbol decreases *more* rapidly as more tickers are added. What do > you think might account for that? Is it just due to the log nature of the > chart? Thanks! > > > > Steve > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Fred <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tonetti > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> > ps.com > > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 5:49 PM > > Subject: [amibroker] Multi Core Optimization, L2 Cache & Optimization Run > Times > > > > Given TJ's comments about: > > > > - The amount of memory utilized in processing symbols of data > > - Whether or not this would fit in the L2 cache > > - The effect it would have on optimizations when it didn't > > > > I finally got around to running a little benchmark for Multi Core > Optimization using the program I wrote and posted ( MCO ) which I'll be > posting a new version of shortly . > > > > These tests were run under the following conditions: > > > > - A less than state of the art laptop with > > o Core 2 Duo 1.86 Ghz processor > > o 2 MB of L2 Cache > > > > - Watch Lists of symbols each of which > > o Contains the next power of two number of symbols of the previous > i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 > > o Contains Symbols containing ~5000 bars of data . > > > > Given the above: > > > > - Each symbol should require 160,000 bytes i.e. ~5,000 bars * 32 > bytes per bar > > - Loading more than 13 symbols should cause L2 cache misses to > occur > > > > Results: > > > > - See the attached data & chart > > > > There are several interesting things I find regarding the results . > > > > - The "dent" in the curve looking left to right occurs right where > you'd think it would, between 8 symbols and 16 symbols i.e. from the point > at which all data can be loaded to and accessed from the L2 cache to the > point where it no longer can . > > - The "dent" occurs in the same place running either one or two > instances of AB > > - The "dent" while clearly visible is hardly traumatic in terms of > run times > > - The relationship of run times between running one and two > instances of AB is consistent at 40% savings in terms of run times > regardless of the number of symbols. > > - This is also in line when one looks at how much CPU is utilized > when running one instance of AB which on the test machine is typically in > the 54 - 60% range. > > > > I have a new toy that I'll be trying these benchmarks on again shortly i.e. > a dual core 2 duo quad 3.0 ghz . > > > > > _____ > > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. > It has removed 480 spam emails to date. > Paying users do not have this message in their emails. > Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfigh <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> ter.com/len <http://www.spamfigh <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> ter.com/len> > for free now! > ________________________________ I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 480 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfigh <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> ter.com/len> for free now! No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.0/1506 - Release Date: 6/17/2008 4:30 PM _____ I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 480 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> for free now!
