After 35 hours and 890 games in the (80 threads at 0.65x speed) versus (40 threads at 1x speed) match, the results are similar to the previous tests.Houdini wrote:I'll start the 40 vs 80 threads match, it will take some time .
(+147 -118 =625) or about (+11±12 Elo) in favor of the 80 hyper-threads.
Time control of the games is 40+0.4 (with 80 or 40 threads this produces a very good level of play).
Games are run with Houdini 6 using 2048 MB of hash on a dual Xeon E5-v4 server, 2 x 20 cores at 2.3 GHz.
The CPU consumption reported by the Task Manager is quite huge, 1381 hours vs 690 hours; in 35 hours real time there's been 2000 hours of CPU time.
The results confirm that it is indeed beneficial to use more threads and suggest that at least up to 80 threads the multi-threaded performance increase is very consistent.
As a final verification for this point I will start a 80 hyper-threads vs 20 threads match on the same server. This should produce something else than a +10 Elo difference .