Massimiliano Maini wrote:
>
> Christian Anthon wrote on 29/04/2009 10:23:59:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Massimiliano Maini
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [email protected] wrote on
>> 28/04/2009 22:01:23:
>>
>> MaX build with single thread : ~32400 eval/s
>> MaX build with MT code, 1 thread : ~24800 eval/s
>> MaX build with MT code, 2 threads : ~34600 eval/s
>>
>> However, a quick rollout (648 trials, expert, full, 2 top moves of
> postion
>> t60BYCButycAAA:cAnnAWAASAAA) has shown the following:
>>
>> MaX build with single thread : 2m04s
>> MaX build with MT code, 1 thread : 2m04s
>> MaX build with MT code, 2 threads : 1m48s
>>
>> I'm much more worried about the last two numbers here. MT code
>> should give close to twice the speed, or we are doing something wrong.
>
> Here at office the PC is single core, don't know if this explains the
> "poor" result. I'll check at home (dual core).
You did say the pc was "1 core, 2 threads", does this mean it's a hyper-threaded
machine? That would match a small increase for 2 threads, note also that the 1
thread test will be using 2 threads (one for the gui and one for the evaluations
- the gui thread will only be redrawing the screen).
The best test would be on a simple single core/processor machine, these are
getting quite rare, all the pcs I see are multi-core now.
Jon
_________________________________________________________________
Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665375/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
