Because my current approach seems to work just as well (or maybe better), and I haven't had time to code up a shared try and tune it up to validate that assumption. Chaslot's paper indicates perhaps that not having a shared tree is stronger. My guess is that they are about the same, so it's not worth the effort to change.
david > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:computer-go- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Williams > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Kas Cup - results and prizes > > Why don't you use a shared tree? > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:49 PM, David Fotland <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On an i7-2600 Many Faces does 11.4K pps with 4 threads, and 18.7k with > > 8 threads, a 64% increase, so the 2600 scales a little better than the > > 3770, but the 3770 is still a litte bit faster. > > > > > > > > david > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Erik van der > > Werf > > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 4:41 AM > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Kas Cup - results and prizes > > > > > > > > I don't have an i7-2600, but I could run oakfoam on the 3930. I just > > downloaded it and it does compile. If you give me a list of gtp > > commands to run the benchmark, then I will send you the output back. > > > > > > > > Erik > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM, ds <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is very interesting, > > > > I have not more than 10% with oakfoam on i7-2600K. Would be > > interesting if it is the processor or if you e.g. access more often > > memory instead of cache due to your code... > > > > Do you have the chance to run your program on a i7-2600? or do you > > have to much time and try > > https://bitbucket.org/francoisvn/oakfoam/wiki/Home > > on your i7-3930. If so, I would be very much interested in the number > > you get in the beginning of a 19x19 game without book:) > > > > > > Detlef > > > > Am Donnerstag, den 09.08.2012, 12:16 +0200 schrieb Erik van der Werf: > > > >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Petr Baudis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:08:47PM +0200, ds wrote: > >> > Hyperthreading does the trick, I have the experience it > >> increases the > >> > performance by about 10%. I think this is due to waiting > for > >> RAM I/O or > >> > things like that.... > >> > >> > >> Yes. With hyperthreading, performance per thread goes down > >> significantly, but total performance goes up by about 15%. In > >> the > >> Pentium 4 era, hyperthreading did not usually pay off, but > >> with i7, > >> its performance is much better. The basic idea is that there > >> are two > >> instruction pipelines that share the same ALU and other > >> processor units; > >> if one of the pipelines stalls (usually due to memory fetch), > >> the other > >> can use the ALU in the meantime, or the two threads may use > >> different > >> parts of the CPU altogether based on what the instructions > do. > >> > >> > >> > >> 10-15%, really, that low? For my program (on an i7-3930K, going from > >> 6 to 12 threads) it is more in the order of 40% extra simulations per > >> second. > >> > >> > >> Erik > >> > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Computer-go mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Computer-go mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Computer-go mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
