that hyperthreading does not work for Crafty. looks like the i7 with 4 is about as good as previous processors with 8 real cores...zullil wrote:I am still trying to understand this topic. What, if anything, should I infer by comparing lines 1 and 5 in the following table (copied from http://www.sedatchess.com/craftybenchmarks.html )?
Code: Select all
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Program Exe Processor GHz Threads Kn/s Time Hardware User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crafty v22.8 64 bit i7 920 HT off @4.00GHz 4CPU 18072085 8.27 Phil Harris Crafty v22.8 64 bit 2x QX9775 @4.00GHz 8CPU 21239451 9.34 Lukas Cimiotti Crafty v22.8 64 bit i7 920 HT off @3.80GHz 4CPU 16811057 9.63 Lukas Cimiotti Crafty v22.8 64 bit Intel QX9650 @3.81GHz 4CPU 15404968 10.22 Sedat Canbaz Crafty v22.8 64 bit i7 920 HT on @4.00GHz 8CPU 18708859 12.17 Phil Harris Crafty v22.8 64 bit Intel QX6700 2.66GHz 4CPU 11000419 14.52 Sedat Canbaz Crafty v22.8 64 bit AMD X2 4600+ 2.40GHz 2CPU 4084622 31.83 Sedat Canbaz Crafty v22.8 32 bit AMD Turion Mob. 2.20GHz 2CPU 2286735 57.21 Sedat Canbaz Crafty v22.8 32 bit AMD 64 3400+ 2.40GHz 1CPU 1431694 78.64 Sedat Canbaz Crafty v22.8 32 bit Pentium 4 3.20GHz 1CPU 839640 133.05 Levent Kaya Crafty v22.8 32 bit Intel Celeron 1.70GHz 1CPU 423000 264.25 Sedat Canbaz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core i7 and chess
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Core i7 and chess
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Core i7 and chess
No, you are using the _wrong_ comparison. HT on might slightly increase the NPS. But it will _significantly_ slow the time-to-solution down because of parallel search overhead (extra nodes searched).Sean Evans wrote:These two seem to state HT would be better left on!Code: Select all
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Program Exe Processor GHz Threads Kn/s Time Hardware User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crafty v22.8 64 bit i7 920 HT off @4.00GHz 4CPU 18072085 8.27 Phil Harris Crafty v22.8 64 bit i7 920 HT on @4.00GHz 8CPU 18708859 12.17 Phil Harris -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Core i7 and chess
you just make the tree 50% bigger or so. So even if you search a faster NPS, you have to search way more nodes, a losing proposition...zullil wrote:The search rates in NPS are essentially equal, but with HT enabled the search time is roughly 50% more. So with HT enabled, the search hits about 50% more nodes? Why is this bad (or inefficient)? Forgive me, I'm still confused. Please help me grasp this!Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:No they dont. I don't know where you get that. There is a measly increase in NPS for a gargantuan loss in parallel efficiency. A clear losing situation.These two seem to state HT would be better left on!Sean Evans wrote:Code: Select all
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Program Exe Processor GHz Threads Kn/s Time Hardware User ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crafty v22.8 64 bit i7 920 HT off @4.00GHz 4CPU 18072085 8.27 Phil Harris Crafty v22.8 64 bit i7 920 HT on @4.00GHz 8CPU 18708859 12.17 Phil Harris -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean
-
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:31 am
- Location: PA USA
- Full name: Louis Zulli
Re: Core i7 and chess
How would this situation change if there were eight actual cores but no hyper-threading? I'm still missing something here.bob wrote: you just make the tree 50% bigger or so. So even if you search a faster NPS, you have to search way more nodes, a losing proposition...
-
- Posts: 2851
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:01 pm
- Location: Irvine, CA, USA
Re: Core i7 and chess
I'll try to explain a little more. Most chess engines use alpha-beta search. This lets them discard large portions of the search tree without any loss of knowledge. You need to know what happened earlier in the search to know what to discard, and the the more parallel the search the less likely it is you'll have the necessary information available to do that. So it takes much more than just a few more nodes to make searching with more threads a net benefit.zullil wrote:The search rates in NPS are essentially equal, but with HT enabled the search time is roughly 50% more. So with HT enabled, the search hits about 50% more nodes? Why is this bad (or inefficient)? Forgive me, I'm still confused. Please help me grasp this!
-
- Posts: 2851
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:01 pm
- Location: Irvine, CA, USA
Re: Core i7 and chess
Then you would be searching almost double the nodes, which would still be an improvement when searching the 50% larger tree.zullil wrote:How would this situation change if there were eight actual cores but no hyper-threading? I'm still missing something here.bob wrote: you just make the tree 50% bigger or so. So even if you search a faster NPS, you have to search way more nodes, a losing proposition...
-
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:34 am
Re: Core i7 and chess
I think that HT it´s not bad in this case...terminator wrote:Some guy would run a fritz 9 benchmark and the results would be updated on that page. What about the Core i7? Has it been compared to those processors? Its a shame Intel do not support chess as it would be great to see Fritzmarks on mainstream websites.
Are there any Core i7's on Playchess and how many threads does it have? The core i7 supports hyperthreading which may not be such a good thing for chess if i recall from a conversation here.
Anyway, be careful with the iCore, they are "more of ~300 W" to full load, certainly something very I inconvenience in the home-sector, and inconvenience reduced spaces for humans... (hot and noise), in idle OK, but in chess, cpu runs a lot of full load... it´s to lot of hot
Evidently they are very strong in calculations, but there are times that he/she/we doesn't care to wait a little, if the temperature of the room doesn't go up 3 or 4 ºC, or if the computer makes an annoying noise. I like more... low watts cpu, it´s good for bill, and green.
bye. Oliver from Spain
-
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:31 am
- Location: PA USA
- Full name: Louis Zulli
Re: Core i7 and chess
So maybe you can search at a slightly improved rate, but at the cost of having to consider an awful lot of nodes that should have been pruned anyway? Thus despite the improved NPS, in reality you're taking a beating in terms of performance.Dirt wrote:I'll try to explain a little more. Most chess engines use alpha-beta search. This lets them discard large portions of the search tree without any loss of knowledge. You need to know what happened earlier in the search to know what to discard, and the the more parallel the search the less likely it is you'll have the necessary information available to do that. So it takes much more than just a few more nodes to make searching with more threads a net benefit.zullil wrote:The search rates in NPS are essentially equal, but with HT enabled the search time is roughly 50% more. So with HT enabled, the search hits about 50% more nodes? Why is this bad (or inefficient)? Forgive me, I'm still confused. Please help me grasp this!
Thanks for the help. I think I understand now.
-
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 pm
Re: Core i7 and chess
That's good. Thanks!terminator wrote:Unless you can back it up with a link, I believe hyperthreading is not present in (earlier) Quads and Dual Cores. It has resurfaced in the Core i7 (dubbed Intel Core 3).Mark wrote:Kind of an aside here, but does a standard Q6600 have hyperthreading? If so, I'd like to be able to turn it off... Thanks!
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Core i7 and chess
OK, if You have eight actual threads, the NPS (I am talking Crafty here) will be roughly 8x faster. Suppose you were searching 2.5M nps on a single CPU. With eight, you would see 20M nodes per second. But, again with Crafty, for each CPU you add beyond the first, the one-cpu tree size grows by 30%.zullil wrote:How would this situation change if there were eight actual cores but no hyper-threading? I'm still missing something here.bob wrote: you just make the tree 50% bigger or so. So even if you search a faster NPS, you have to search way more nodes, a losing proposition...
First, let's look at the 2 cpu numbers.
1cpu 2.5M nodes per second. takes 60 seconds to search 150M nodes
2cpu 5.0M nodes per second, but the tree grows to 150M + .25M extra overhead (I just ran a few tests to get an average for this number). So we search 175M nodes per second at 5M nodes per second, which takes about 35 seconds. The speedup is then 60sec/35sec = 1.7x faster.
4cpu. 10.0M nodes per second, but tree grows by 40M extra nodes for a total of 190M. 190M divided by 10M nps = 19 seconds. Speedup is 60/19 = 3.1x faster.
This continues at least thru 16 processors.
The problem with hyperthreading is that in the above 2 cpu example (one processor with two logical (hyper-threaded) CPUs. You search 175M nodes, but at not much over 2.5M nodes per second. And that is a big loser as you actually take significantly longer to do the same search compared to the time taken by one processor no hyperthreading...
hope that helps. If you have Crafty and a multiple-cpu machine, you can run the test yourself... Run a single position several times with 2 and 4 to get average results. You will see that if you double the nps by using two real CPUS, the overhead is more than compensated for by the extra NPS. But with hyperthreading, since the NPS doesn't go up very much, suddenly the overhead is enough to make it run slower rather than faster.