1 Stockfish 180104 T32 +22 +5/=75/-0 53.13% 42.5/80
2 Stockfish 180104 T16 -22 +0/=75/-5 46.88% 37.5/80
Engine Depth Time Games Moves Average
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockfish 180104 T32 38.46 20:21:11 80 5259 13.93
Stockfish 180104 T16 37.82 20:26:05 80 5266 13.97
Depth : Average search depth
Time : Total time engine used
Moves : Total moves engine played
Average : Average time per move in centi-seconds
1 Stockfish 180104 T32 +22 +5/=75/-0 53.13% 42.5/80
2 Stockfish 180104 T16 -22 +0/=75/-5 46.88% 37.5/80
Engine Depth Time Games Moves Average
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockfish 180104 T32 38.46 20:21:11 80 5259 13.93
Stockfish 180104 T16 37.82 20:26:05 80 5266 13.97
Depth : Average search depth
Time : Total time engine used
Moves : Total moves engine played
Average : Average time per move in centi-seconds
.
Thanks Andreas, interesting as always. How many NUMA nodes this 32 core thing has? The main result for me here is 0.64 plies depth difference, it is probably a more reliable and easier to quantify variable here than Elo. If EBF of SF for Lazy SMP on so many cores is about 1.5-1.6, then effective speedup would be in 1.3-1.4 range from 16 -> 32 cores on probably double NUMA nodes.
Laskos wrote:Thanks Andreas, interesting as always. How many NUMA nodes this 32 core thing has? The main result for me here is 0.64 plies depth difference, it is probably a more reliable and easier to quantify variable here than Elo. If EBF of SF for Lazy SMP on so many cores is about 1.5-1.6, then effective speedup would be in 1.3-1.4 range from 16 -> 32 cores on probably double NUMA nodes.
The workstation has 4 NUMA nodes.
I would like to play at least 500 games. Then the result is statistically more meaningful.
Laskos wrote:
Thanks Andreas, interesting as always. How many NUMA nodes this 32 core thing has? The main result for me here is 0.64 plies depth difference, it is probably a more reliable and easier to quantify variable here than Elo. If EBF of SF for Lazy SMP on so many cores is about 1.5-1.6, then effective speedup would be in 1.3-1.4 range from 16 -> 32 cores on probably double NUMA nodes.
Will be nice to know the number of nodes visited also. I know is not something that is stored normally, was just a way of telling that other than the 0.64 extra plies, the widening also accounts for a big % of the strength increase.
Laskos wrote:
Thanks Andreas, interesting as always. How many NUMA nodes this 32 core thing has? The main result for me here is 0.64 plies depth difference, it is probably a more reliable and easier to quantify variable here than Elo. If EBF of SF for Lazy SMP on so many cores is about 1.5-1.6, then effective speedup would be in 1.3-1.4 range from 16 -> 32 cores on probably double NUMA nodes.
Will be nice to know the number of nodes visited also. I know is not something that is stored normally, was just a way of telling that other than the 0.64 extra plies, the widening also accounts for a big % of the strength increase.
Right, I tried some sort of convoluted and confusing thinking while writing the post. I wrote EBF 1.5-1.6 going from 16 to 32 cores, which EBF includes widening. In fact EBF of SF is about 1.4-1.5 on the same number of cores. And widening may account for 30% of strength improvement, deepening 70%. Or something like that. So, 0.64 plies is maybe about 1.3 effective speed-up time to strength from deepening. And that means 16->32 cores gives about 1.5 total effective speed-up time to strength from deepening + widening. That is all very speculative. Could be even 1.7.