Thanks for your investigations!Rebel wrote:Nobody cares?
Or do I miss something?
The developers of Linux have invested much more attention in core scheduling than Microsoft, if it's better remains the question, see the WIKI - Scheduling_(computing)cdani wrote:Thanks for your investigations!Rebel wrote:Nobody cares?
Or do I miss something?
As I don't feel that I have a problem to solve, for the moment I keep doing like always, but this is noted for if something related seems to happen. Is like what Bob said of testing with Linux, very useful in some context.
Code: Select all
CPU Result Perc Time ELO LOS
Normal 2485|4800 51.8% 40/15 +12 99.9%
Affinity 2455|4800 51.1% 40/15 +8 98.0%Code: Select all
CPU Result Perc Time ELO LOS
Normal 2437|4800 50.8% 40/30 +5 92.2%
Affinity 2417|4800 50.4% 40/30 +3 74.7%Code: Select all
CPU Result Perc Time ELO LOS
Normal 2470|4800 51.5% 40/60 +10 99.7%
Affinity 2369|4800 49.4% 40/60 -4 11.1%Indeed, I don't feel that I have a problem to solve either. Even if core scheduling isn't quite optimal in Windows, it is better than the pain and hassle of running Linux. I like the O/S to help me in what I do, not to hinder me.cdani wrote:Thanks for your investigations!Rebel wrote:Nobody cares?
Or do I miss something?
As I don't feel that I have a problem to solve, for the moment I keep doing like always, but this is noted for if something related seems to happen. Is like what Bob said of testing with Linux, very useful in some context.
How on earth does Linux "hinder" you? It prevents all the virus nonsense windows enjoys, avoids all the software bugs that windows saddles you with, etc. Installs far easier than windows nowadays also.Modern Times wrote:Indeed, I don't feel that I have a problem to solve either. Even if core scheduling isn't quite optimal in Windows, it is better than the pain and hassle of running Linux. I like the O/S to help me in what I do, not to hinder me.cdani wrote:Thanks for your investigations!Rebel wrote:Nobody cares?
Or do I miss something?
As I don't feel that I have a problem to solve, for the moment I keep doing like always, but this is noted for if something related seems to happen. Is like what Bob said of testing with Linux, very useful in some context.
Viruses prefer to taget certain OSes for obvious reasons, bugs happen everywhere.bob wrote:It prevents all the virus nonsense windows enjoys, avoids all the software bugs that windows saddles you with, etc. Installs far easier than windows nowadays also.
What is it that makes Windows 10 worse than 7 or 8?bob wrote:Sorry, but not even close. And if you are talking windows 10, not at all.
Code: Select all
Match [Andscacs 64bit vs Andscacs 32bit] [4 cores]
CPU Games Time Perc ELO LOS Depth Depth Diff
Normal 2400 40/15 63.9% +99 100% 16.30 14.80 1.50
Affinity 2400 40/15 63.5% +97 100% 16.48 15.03 1.45Code: Select all
Match [Stochfish 4 64bit vs Stocfish 4 32bit] [8 cores]
CPU Games Time Perc ELO LOS Depth Depth Diff
Normal 4800 40/15 57.6% +52 100% 17.34 16.61 0.73
Affinity 4800 40/15 58.6% +60 100% 17.82 17.02 0.80Thanks for the test. True, Andscacs does not use cpu scheduling code. It has an uci option WinGroupAffinity, but is disabled by default, and should be used only for more than 64 core machines that I know.Rebel wrote: I took 2 programs (SF4 and Andscacs) which as far as I know don't have special cpu scheduling code, such as Texel.
One problem is that it is difficult to stop Windows 10 from installing updates.elpapa wrote:What is it that makes Windows 10 worse than 7 or 8?bob wrote:Sorry, but not even close. And if you are talking windows 10, not at all.
Guess so. But what I am after is the accuracy of the matches we play. I am curious to find out.cdani wrote: I suppose that any high performance software will profit at least a little from the cpu scheduling, isn't it?