Milos wrote:bob wrote:I do have 8 core boxes, and I'd be more than happy to run the test for 1, 2, 4 and 8. But I have already done that, with no surprises at all. I don't run many 8-core tests because that machine has 70 nodes, and I can only run 70 games at a time, which is slow enough to make me not do it unless I am testing something new in the parallel search and want to see how it does.
Well you only repeat enormous number of times you've done something, however, you never present any new results except what you had in your Cray Blitz paper from the last millennium.
I repeat I've never seen a grain of proof for what you are saying.
Perhaps try opening eyes and shutting mouth would help? I have posted hundreds of parallel search performance runs here. Some 5-6 year old data was on my ftp box, showing 1-8 cores. Others have run crafty tests and posted the results. So just because you didn't see them, that's not a shortcoming on _my_ part. It is ignorance on yours. The data has been presented, and parallel search discussions have been taking place here for many years. You don't get a free pass to stumble around with your eyes closed and then claim, "You never provide any data" because you didn't see it. You _couldn't_ see it unless you looked. But it's been here.
So try again with trying to shift the topic to something that is false.
If what you claim is true taking even 4 and 8 core machine you would have (with your formula):
- on 4 core machine: speedup_a=1+3*0.7=3.1
- on 8 core machine: speedup_b=1+7*0.7=5.9
Amazing. You got it right. And had you seen the analysis by Martin F (I put the raw data from an 8-way opteron box run a few years ago) you would have seen that the speedup was actually _above_ that simple linear fit I have been quoting. But then again, you wouldn't actually be interested in real data, or you would have already seen more than enough.
log(speedup_b/speedup_b)/log(2)*70=65 elo points
There is simply no way you can get 65 elo improvement. And to cite you, been there done that. You don't get even 40 elo.
I know what a factor of 2.0 in speed gives in Elo. There's nothing else to say. You keep talking about me providing no data when I have provided hundreds of posts over the past 5 years on this very topic, then you provide _nothing_ but a vacuous declaration of "you don't even get 40." Perhaps you were trying to shift the discussion to your IQ or something. Otherwise I have no clue where "40" comes from with regard to anything. The 1.7x is less than 2x, which means less that 70 Elo. Probably in the range of 50 or so. Of course, I suppose that kind of math is a little over your head???
Once you finally run this kind of test (using programs from this millennium) and realize you are wrong, then you might be able to start thinking of the reasons why...
I'm only trying to think of reasons why I keep trying to discuss things with someone that has no clue about what is going on. That is a much more serious issue, in fact... talk about wasting time...