I had similar trouble in the beginning trying to compare my results to published results, both for speed and win rates. I have an E6550 at 2.33 GHz. I'm using both cores. This is a UCT search, biased by the Many Faces of Go move generator, with fairly stupid playouts. Currently I don't expand a move at the leaf until it has been visited four times, but each playout starts again at the root. Otherwise I run out of UCT memory.
I see a slight slowdown (9x9 board, move 3, to avoid my very very small opening book): 20K playouts @ 20.7 K/s 100K playouts @ 19.7 K/s 470K playouts @ 17.7 K/s I don't have access to a profiler now, but I think it spends about 30% of the total time in Many Faces' move generator. My early UCT tests, with simple playouts and 3x3 patterns and no progressive widening, and no Many Faces' help, ran at about 34K playouts per second on a single core of this same machine. Smarter search has reduced the speed over 3x. This early, fast version beat gnugo 31% of the time on 9x9 with 3 minutes per game. The current version beats gnugo 19x19 83% of the time with 10K playouts per move. I don't test any more against gnugo 9x9, but when I stopped, it was beating it 91% of the time with 5K playouts per move. (gnugo for me is always 3.7.10 level 10 with lots of time). David > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:computer-go- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Sheppard > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 11:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [computer-go] Trying to understand speed metrics > > >Currently I only get about 19k playouts per second on a 2 core > >Core2Duo 2.3 GHz, on 9 line empty board. I started at about > >55k playouts per second on one core (for a UCT search). > > So, David, what happens when you are supply useful information? > People impose on you for even more... > > I have seen playouts/second numbers a few times, and I always > have trouble relating them to what I am working on. Usually other > engines are 100x faster than mine, but sometimes only 10x. :-) > > The 19K/sec speed represents the first time that any engine > has claimed to be *less* than 5x faster than mine, accounting > for a difference in hardware. So I want to make sure that I understand. > > I am trying to get a handle on how fast a Core2 Duo 2.3GHz is, > and it turns out that there is a wide range. The benchmarks at > http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php show several parts that > might match, with ratings as follows: > > Intel Core2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33GHz = 1415 rating (higher is better) > Intel Core2 Duo P8400 @ 2.26GHz = 1542 rating > Intel Core2 Duo P7550 @ 2.26GHz = 1796 rating > > Is your chip one of these? And you are using both cores? > > Another thing I notice about my engine is that playouts/second > drops as the UCT tree becomes larger. For instance, between 10K > trials and 100K trials the rate drops by ~20%. Profiling shows > that this is because longer variations spend more time in selectBest(), > giveCredit(), progressiveWidening(), and other tree management routines. > > So, a few questions: > > 1) are your measurements also in the context of a UCT tree? > 2) what slowdown do you observe as search progresses? > > Your answers will go a long way towards helping me to understand > how a world-class engine performs. I appreciate that you help the > community in this way. > > TIA, > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
