What I wrote has no resemblance to what you understood, wanted to understand, or extrapolated from my words.bob wrote:And your point would be? I did the same for parallel search if you recall. But I _designed_ Crafty to work on 32 bit machines. The original rotated stuff had a ton of 32 bit optimizations, with the idea that one day they would not be needed.michiguel wrote:That is why Crafty is a bad example. Bob has been saying that programs in the past were not optimized for current hardware. Well, Crafty _was_ being optimized for hardware of the future, in detriment to the current hardware of the time. He was saying this all the time in the 90's and there were countless threads about it. "64 bits will become standard" etc. etc.mhull wrote:It's still going to be crafty 1995 vs crafty 1995 (new hardware), just like your Rebel test. The only difference is that crafty 1995 has more speedup potential than Reble because it (1995 version) can also benefit from 64-bit. Rebel can't.Don wrote:Rebel vs Rebel - apples to apples.mhull wrote:I don't think it persuasive to introduce an orange in a comparison of apples. Crafty is apples to apples.Don wrote:Says you.bob wrote:I do not quite see the point for all the tangents. It would seem to me we have a pretty good idea of what/how to test.
Rebel is only 100 times faster on modern hardware. You add a zero to this and consider it a reasonable test.
Crafty 1995 vs Crafty 2010 - apples vs oranges.
Miguel
Somehow you seem to imply that planning for the future, having the foresight to predict that 64 bit processors would become standard, and such, is somehow a bad idea? I give raises to people that thing progressively, not fire 'em. That's a good characteristic to have, not a bad one. And for me, it worked. I had a competitive program in 1995. It gained more from 64 bit hardware than those that chose to stick with status quo. That is a problem?
Miguel