On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 01:02:40AM +0200, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:55 AM, Michael Williams wrote:
Very interesting stuff. One glimmer of hope is that the memory
situations should improve over time since memory grows but Go
boards stay the same size.
Well you
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Petr Baudis wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 01:02:40AM +0200, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:55 AM, Michael Williams wrote:
Very interesting stuff. One glimmer of hope is that the memory
situations should improve over time since memory grows
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:48:12AM +0200, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Petr Baudis wrote:
Just read the nVidia docs. Shifting has the same cost as addition.
Document number and url?
A document of 2 weeks ago where they write at least *something*,
not bad from nvidia, knowing they soon have to give lessons to
topcoders :)
It's not really systematic approach though. We want a list of all
instructions with latencies and throughput latency
that belong to it. Also lookup
Thanks for sharing this Christian,
in my lines comments.
On Sep 9, 2009, at 5:54 PM, Christian Nentwich wrote:
I did quite a bit of testing earlier this year on running playout
algorithms on GPUs. Unfortunately, I am too busy to write up a tech
report on it, but I finally brought myself
On Sep 9, 2009, at 11:57 PM, Christian Nentwich wrote:
Mark,
let me try to add some more context to answer your questions. When
I say in my conclusion that it's not worth it, I mean it's not
worth using the GPU to run playout algorithms of the sort that are
in use today. There may be
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:55 AM, Michael Williams wrote:
Very interesting stuff. One glimmer of hope is that the memory
situations should improve over time since memory grows but Go
boards stay the same size.
Well you first have to figure out how fast or slow shifting is on the
nvidia's
Rene,
you're absolutely right, it's completely fishy! But don't worry, you're
work is not in vain :) I noticed this morning, when I read your mail,
that I had included the 9x9 results in my original mail instead of
19x19! Indeed, for 19x19 the results are even worse. Here's a complete
Interesting stuff. I don't have the skills nor the time to make such
experiments myself, but here is a simple idea:
When using a bitmap representation of the board, it is quite possible to find
all eye-like points with a constant number of bit-shifting operations. That
should reduce the number
Christian,
Would you care to provide some more detail on your implementation for the
playouts? Your results are very impressive. At 19x19 Go using bit-boards,
your implementation is roughly 7x as fast as the bitboard implementation I
presented just a few weeks back, and also outperforms libEgo by
10 matches
Mail list logo
