Kaj Soderberg wrote:Hi Tord, and other Mac connoisseurs,
Benchmarked today again, but no difference. Changed some energy settings for maximum performance, but only marginally faster. Nothing extraordinry to see in the Activity Monitor. The computer had been switched on for more than 6 hours in order to complete any internal processes first. The 2x2,53 Mac runs at 2/3 speed of my 2x1,83 PC, when i would expect an increase at around 50% based on cpu speed and more L2 cache. Any ideas coming to mind?
Best regards,
Kaj
What kind of Mac do you have?
Use activity monitor while running Glaurung:
Does the CPU show something close to 200 for Glaurung?
How much system memory and how much is free?
Kaj Soderberg wrote:Hi Tord, and other Mac connoisseurs,
Benchmarked today again, but no difference. Changed some energy settings for maximum performance, but only marginally faster. Nothing extraordinry to see in the Activity Monitor. The computer had been switched on for more than 6 hours in order to complete any internal processes first. The 2x2,53 Mac runs at 2/3 speed of my 2x1,83 PC, when i would expect an increase at around 50% based on cpu speed and more L2 cache. Any ideas coming to mind?
Best regards,
Kaj
What kind of Mac do you have?
Use activity monitor while running Glaurung:
Does the CPU show something close to 200 for Glaurung?
How much system memory and how much is free?
Hi Kenny,
It is a MacBook Pro. 2x2,53ghz, 6mb L2, 4gb ram.
Glaurung shows about 180-185 when running on 2 cpus.
System memory while running G. shows active 2.7gb and available 1,3gb.
Any thoughts?
Kaj Soderberg wrote:Hi Tord, and other Mac connoisseurs,
Benchmarked today again, but no difference. Changed some energy settings for maximum performance, but only marginally faster. Nothing extraordinry to see in the Activity Monitor. The computer had been switched on for more than 6 hours in order to complete any internal processes first. The 2x2,53 Mac runs at 2/3 speed of my 2x1,83 PC, when i would expect an increase at around 50% based on cpu speed and more L2 cache. Any ideas coming to mind?
Best regards,
Kaj
What kind of Mac do you have?
Use activity monitor while running Glaurung:
Does the CPU show something close to 200 for Glaurung?
How much system memory and how much is free?
Hi Kenny,
It is a MacBook Pro. 2x2,53ghz, 6mb L2, 4gb ram.
Glaurung shows about 180-185 when running on 2 cpus.
System memory while running G. shows active 2.7gb and available 1,3gb.
Any thoughts?
My best,
Kaj
Hmm, so probably you have a Penryn processor. Is the Windows computer you are comparing to also a laptop? I wonder if there is a considerable difference in the quality of the compiles between the windows and mac version.
Indeed it's a Penryn. The Windows one i'm comparing with is a 2 year old core 2 duo XP laptop at 2x1,83ghz. Something does not make sense...
Anyway, i will definitely try out some things before i'll sell my soul to the devil, meaning buying and installing Vista (horror, belsebub...) under Bootcamp to see how quick Windows would be.
I use the Leopard version of Glaurung, so that should be OK. Maybe Shredder 11 and the old Fruit were written for Tiger or earlier versions, but that would not account for Glaurung. Hmm...
royb wrote:
It's not just a Glaurung problem. It *is* a ChessBase problem but they refuse to fix it as "their" engines don't have that issue.
I guess you're right: SMK did make an effort with his ShredderClassic 3 (Shredder 11) GUI, while his previous GUI (Shredder 9.1) had the same problem as the Fritz GUI.
Kaj Soderberg wrote:Hi Tord, and other Mac connoisseurs,
Benchmarked today again, but no difference. Changed some energy settings for maximum performance, but only marginally faster. Nothing extraordinry to see in the Activity Monitor. The computer had been switched on for more than 6 hours in order to complete any internal processes first. The 2x2,53 Mac runs at 2/3 speed of my 2x1,83 PC, when i would expect an increase at around 50% based on cpu speed and more L2 cache. Any ideas coming to mind?
Best regards,
Kaj
What kind of Mac do you have?
Use activity monitor while running Glaurung:
Does the CPU show something close to 200 for Glaurung?
How much system memory and how much is free?
Hi Kenny,
It is a MacBook Pro. 2x2,53ghz, 6mb L2, 4gb ram.
Glaurung shows about 180-185 when running on 2 cpus.
System memory while running G. shows active 2.7gb and available 1,3gb.
Any thoughts?
My best,
Kaj
Hmm, so probably you have a Penryn processor. Is the Windows computer you are comparing to also a laptop? I wonder if there is a considerable difference in the quality of the compiles between the windows and mac version.
I tend to think you are right about the compiles. I've been doing some reading about that stuff, and what i see is that there can be significant speed differences depending on compiles. Maybe for the Mac there are some constraints that are difficult to master, or the worse alternative would be that programmers do not pay as much attention to product quality for the Mac and other smaller platforms than for Windows. As i cannot really believe that the latter option is the case, my guts says here is work to do on the technical side of things.
ernest wrote:Hi,
Is there any way in the Fritz GUI (except by increasing the screen resolution) to be able to manage Glaurung's Engine parameters window, which is too big?
I compiled (by request a while ago) win32 versions of Glaurung & Stockfish with reduced uci parameters which fit in 16:9 screens.
krazyken wrote:Hmm, so probably you have a Penryn processor. Is the Windows computer you are comparing to also a laptop?
Hello Kaj,
As far as I can see, you didn't answer the above question from Kenny. It's an important question: Unless the Windows computer you are comparing to also uses a laptop CPU, it is no surprise that chess programs runn slower on your MacBook Pro.
I wonder if there is a considerable difference in the quality of the compiles between the windows and mac version.
I tend to think you are right about the compiles. I've been doing some reading about that stuff, and what i see is that there can be significant speed differences depending on compiles. Maybe for the Mac there are some constraints that are difficult to master, or the worse alternative would be that programmers do not pay as much attention to product quality for the Mac and other smaller platforms than for Windows. As i cannot really believe that the latter option is the case, my guts says here is work to do on the technical side of things.
The Leopard version of Glaurung is compiled using the Intel compiler (unlike the Tiger version, which is compiled with gcc), and is very fast. What N/s count do you get with a single thread from the opening position? I get 1.14 MN/s on my MacBook Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz.
Kaj Soderberg wrote:
I tend to think you are right about the compiles. I've been doing some reading about that stuff, and what i see is that there can be significant speed differences depending on compiles. Maybe for the Mac there are some constraints that are difficult to master, or the worse alternative would be that programmers do not pay as much attention to product quality for the Mac and other smaller platforms than for Windows. As i cannot really believe that the latter option is the case, my guts says here is work to do on the technical side of things.
Cheers,
Kaj
As far as different compiles go, compiles for Windows and compiles for Mac are frequently done by different people. Some are much better at optimizing than others it seems.
One thing I did see, A MacBook will run slower if you are running it without a battery. You aren't one of the people who likes to take the battery out are you?
