Actually Douglas there is in games like chess really a lot of data.
Be welcome to enter statistical paradise, you can walk around for years
there
and still will be able to fill your computer with statistics :)
There is a lot of data of all kind of compilers, and it differs from program
to program.
Especially visual c++ 2005 which most are using now.
Some of authors post here:
www.talkchess.com
And go to the computerchessforum.
Happy i'm not the one doing a 60% claim, others are though.
So just please ask there. In fact some of the commercial guys are posting
there too.
Most aren't posting at rec.games.chess.computer
A good person to ask is the Bodo programmer name: Joel Veness (Australia)
He might be one of those 60% guys.
He has a lot of classes and subclasses if i understand well and the low
level functions simply get optimized by microsoft compiler far superior than
the GCC compiler. Further details please ask him.
Also ask some details to Gian-Carlo Pascutto about the huge speedup to 64
bits and even more with visual c++ : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Belgium)
If i'm correct the free sjengr version will hit specint2006 (though it'll
probably be specint2010 at the time it releases).
The free sjeng one is a 32 bits program however where i helped with too at
the time.
The current commercial version is called Deep Sjeng and is not only parallel
but far superior and profits a lot from 64 bits and visual c++ 2005.
My own experiences in user friendlyness of visual c++ 2005 aren't there yet,
as it seems to not capable for me to compile AMD64 optimized within GUI with
PGO and at command line it can easily do AMD64 but i fail to see how to use
the pgo there!
So the 10% measurement is GCC+PGO versus "32 bits pgo'ed generic x86"
executable produced by visual c++ 2005.
Measurements vary from ply to ply as the memory controller gets stressed
more of course when searching deeper trees.
I've measured 10.2% to 10.6%.
That's still pretty good from GCC that it's only 10% slower at this still
relative brandnew hardware.
GCC of course has problems adapting to newer instruction sets with more
registers. Competing with a team of like 16 volunteers
against a couple of hundreds fulltime professionals is not so easy, so they
still did do a good job IMHO if you look at the raw
numbers.
Those microsoft programmers seem to have been busy zero seconds to optimize
real well for AMD so far and just focussed upon EM64T.
Vincent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Eadline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Vincent Diepeveen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Ed Karns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] Re: Q&A: BeOS and IBM Cell processor
Now 10% is still not much. I do know there is colleges of mine where it
is
actually 60% speedwin under windows.
Could you provide some detail to this claim? Without data such claims are
worthless.
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
