[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Bug in sigmoid?
From: |
Joern Thyssen |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Bug in sigmoid? |
Date: |
Sun, 4 May 2003 20:57:03 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 04:23:25PM +0200, Olivier Baur wrote
> Le vendredi, 18 avr 2003, à 23:01 Europe/Paris, Joseph Heled a écrit :
>
> >Third, I need to see numbers on how faster this is on non scalar,
> >regular x86 machine.
>
> I don't know if this is a typo, but please note a "scalar" processor is
> what you call a "regular" processor; on the other hand, "non-scalar"
> and "super-scalar" refer to vector-computing.
>
> Please note the speed increase I have measured in sigmoid2 (+60%) was
> for a regular scalar (ie *non* vector) implementation (on a PPC G4
> processor); with a vector implementation of sigmoid2 (on the same
> processor), I actually got a whopping +250% speed increase...
>
> So let me know what figures you get on a scalar x86 :-)
I tried your code:
I pasted it into neuralnet.c, made a call to ComputeSigTable and
replaced all calls to sigmoid with sigmoid2.
I analysed a 172 move match on 2-ply. It took 475 seconds with the old
code and 463 seconds with the new code.
In your posted code you use 201 points, but I tried with both 201 and
1001 points.
I also got slightly different results with typical differences in the
third or fourth digit.
Jørn
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Bug in sigmoid?,
Joern Thyssen <=