Łukasz, is the program multi-threaded? Corei7 920 runs about 7% slower than core2 at the same clock. Possibly due to the optimized code for core2?
Experimental results follow. On a 3 GHz (333 x 9) core2 Q6600: 200000 playouts in 1.49209 seconds 134.04 kpps 44.6798 kpps/GHz (clock independent) 105316/94359 (black wins / white wins), Average of the middle 10 of 12 runs is 44.79506 kpps/GHz. Raw data: 44.6798, 44.7951, 44.8276, 44.8207, 44.8398, 44.6887, 44.8317, 44.8491, 44.782, 44.7216, 44.7983, 44.8451 On a 3.6 GHz (180 x 20) corei7 920: 200000 playouts in 1.34808 seconds 148.359 kpps 41.2643 kpps/GHz (clock independent) 105316/94359 (black wins / white wins), Average of the middle 10 of 12 runs is 41.57643 kpps/GHz. Raw data: 41.2643, 41.9025, 41.3732, 41.5582, 41.1666, 41.4887, 41.7724, 41.9751, 41.6362, 41.787, 41.269, 41.7128 On a 3 GHz (150 x 20) corei7 920: 200000 playouts in 1.6001 seconds 124.992 kpps 40.1661 kpps/GHz (clock independent) 105316/94359 (black wins / white wins), Average of the middle 10 of 12 runs is 41.79165 kpps/GHz. Raw data: 40.1661, 41.8626, 41.8366, 41.687, 41.7099, 41.9556, 41.3053, 41.9335, 41.8255, 41.8838, 42.077, 41.9167 With hyper threading on (3 GHz 920): 200000 playouts in 1.5881 seconds 125.937 kpps 41.9898 kpps/GHz (clock independent) 105316/94359 (black wins / white wins), Average of the middle 10 of 12 runs is 41.82533 kpps/GHz. Raw data: 41.9898, 42.0318, 42.0503, 41.947, 40.6079, 41.7033, 42.0283, 41.8386, 41.5187, 41.8013, 41.9114, 41.4831 Hideki Łukasz Lew: <[email protected]>: >2009/6/6 Hideki Kato <[email protected]>: >> Hi Lukasz, >> >> I have five core2 and one i7 computers running at home. I prefer i7, >> though don't have exact measure. >> >> The most important difference is the memory interface, ie, core2 >> uses a obsolete common bus (FSB) while i7 uses p2p connection with >> an internal (on chip) memory controller. Also, core2 uses DDR2 >> (obsolete) and i7 uses DDR3 memory modules. > >I know the technical differences. I just wonder do they matter in >practice of computer-go > > >> >> On overclocking, i7 performs better. i7 920 (cheapest model) runs at >> 3.6 GHz (C0 stepping; recent D0 is said at 4 GHz) while core2 Q9550 >> (middle range model) runs at 3.2 GHz, with a rather silent air >> cooling. > >thanks. > >> >> If you have a benchmark program please send me. Ubuntu Linux or >> WIndows XP is fine. >> > >http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~lew/engine.gz >please run with: >./engine --seed 123 -b > >FYI it tests only the processor, not the memory and is optimized for core2. > >> Ah, I don't prefer two sockets SMP computers since we will have hexa >> and octa core chips soon (next year? I don't remember). > >I agree. > >> >> Hideki >> >> Łukasz Lew: <[email protected]>: >>>Hi >>> >>>I have few days to buy a computer for Monte-carlo Go program. >>>There is not enough money for a multi processor, so I have to decide between >>>- core i7 2.66 GHz >>>- some core2 quad >>>both subjected to over-clocking. >>> >>>Have you observed that Monte-Carlo Go program is faster on core i7 >>>than on core2 ? >>> >>>Lukasz >>>PS >>>Or have you found some cheap solutions for shared memory dual processor? >>>_______________________________________________ >>>computer-go mailing list >>>[email protected] >>>http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >> -- >> [email protected] (Kato) >> _______________________________________________ >> computer-go mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >> >_______________________________________________ >computer-go mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [email protected] (Kato) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
