Code: Select all
CPU: Dual AMD Opteron 6376 (2x 16 Cores)
OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-Bit
Hash-Table: 128 MB
Openings: fq1500.pgn - 1500 different opening positions, changing colors (3000 games per match)
Time control: 60 + 0.05 seconds per game
Zappa confirms the thesis to have a very good SMP implementation. Up to 8 threads the performance increase per thread at this time control is really phenomenal!
Komodo can completely convince in this test. A continuous increase up to 16 threads.
This shows that even at this low time control an outstanding SMP implementation is still working. Very impressive!
It is knowledge that scales so well in Komodo, and not that much SMP implementation. Ask Larry about that.
I do not think that Komodo SMP is much better than SF one, but I am certain Komodo has more and more useful knowledge than SF.
That was the point: adding knowledge gains strength and scales very well at longer TC. Actually, the longer the TC, the more knowledge helps. And this makes sense, why do you have so much computing power, if there is nothing to compute? When your eval is simple, this performs well with STC, as you save valuable resources, but at LTC speed and simplification gains gradually fall off.
I guess the difference would be even more compelling, when you test with 32,64, etc. threads, or at much longer TC than 1 minute per game.
PS. I possibly again made a remark I should not have made; not directed at anyone or anything, just a casual remark, looking at the raw facts.
But of course, interesting to start a discussion: do you think that SMP implementation scales so well for Komodo, or knowledge?
I think Larry might be very helpful here.