Jonathan Kinsey <address@hidden> wrote
on 29/04/2009 12:54:26:
> Massimiliano Maini wrote:
> >
> > Christian Anthon wrote on 29/04/2009 10:23:59:
> >
> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Massimiliano Maini
> >> address@hidden> wrote:
> >>
> >> address@hidden
wrote on
> >> 28/04/2009 22:01:23:
> >>
> >> MaX build with single thread : ~32400 eval/s
> >> MaX build with MT code, 1 thread : ~24800 eval/s
> >> MaX build with MT code, 2 threads : ~34600 eval/s
> >>
> >> However, a quick rollout (648 trials, expert, full, 2 top
moves of
> > postion
> >> t60BYCButycAAA:cAnnAWAASAAA) has shown the following:
> >>
> >> MaX build with single thread : 2m04s
> >> MaX build with MT code, 1 thread : 2m04s
> >> MaX build with MT code, 2 threads : 1m48s
> >>
> >> I'm much more worried about the last two numbers here. MT
code
> >> should give close to twice the speed, or we are doing something
wrong.
> >
> > Here at office the PC is single core, don't know if this explains
the
> > "poor" result. I'll check at home (dual core).
>
> You did say the pc was "1 core, 2 threads", does this mean
it's a
> hyper-threaded
> machine? That would match a small increase for 2 threads,
Yes, 1 core with hyper-thread. I wasn't really surprised
by the small increase.
> note also that the 1
> thread test will be using 2 threads (one for the gui and one for the
> evaluations
> - the gui thread will only be redrawing the screen). I run the calibrate on the command line version and
the rollout in the gui one. Not sure it's a big deal however ... just a progress
bar and a few numbers updated from time to time ...
> The best test would be on a simple single core/processor machine,
these are
> getting quite rare, all the pcs I see are multi-core now.