>From my tests the extra speed from using max cache although not huge was
>worthwhile.
Given like you say >2gb is the norm (I have 4gb) would it be worth having an
even larger cache available in gnubg?
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Cache question
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:37:15 +0000
The only reason is if the memory usage has any impact for you (running several
copies at the same time for example), it's getting a lot less likely that this
is the case with>2gb becoming the norm on new pcs.
You might find that there is little difference in speed between the maximum and
one-down setting (and this would save you 80mb of memory).
Jon
Michael Depreli wrote:
> I ran some brief tests using rollouts with different cache settings and
> larger cache produced faster results (not linear).
> Are there any known issues (bugs) running gnubg with cache set to max
> for evals and rollouts for plies up to 2?
> If not are there any reasons to not set cache to max?
>
> Michael
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
Add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps. Find out how.
_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/167688463/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
