Thank you for your kind words. I just release version 5.3; although it is not finished...Ajedrecista wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 7:56 pm Hello Richard:
[You wrote a faster perft counter than gperft 1.1 on my system! Under the same or very similar conditions, Perft(9) was computed in circa 99 seconds with gperft 1.1 (hash = 1 GB and 4 threads) and circa 90 seconds (-10%) with MPerft 5.2 v2 (AVX compatible) (using --fast (hash = 1 GB and 4 threads) and --nullmove 9)! The difference was that gperft showed a divided perft and Mperft not (I realised later that I ran MPerft without --div argument), which might close the gap a little.
It is true that gperft 1.2d exists and is faster than 1.1, but I disgracefully missed that download and is not longer available. OTOH, I tested MPerft 5.2 v2 (AVX compatible), so there must be additional gains with v3 (AVX2 compatible) and v3-128 (AVX2 compatible and 128-bit counter for crunching big numbers).
Other appeal to me is the already compiled source, which is a bottleneck for a dummy like me that do not know how to compile. By the way: 5.3 is mentioned in the Readme of your GitHub, but it is not in the Release section... is it unfinished?
Big, big thank you to Richard!
. In version 5.3, I mostly optimized the hashtable. The performance of the different versions on my system (Ryzen 9 5950x at 4.2 Ghz) are (using the arguments -n 9 -h 1024 -t 16 -q):
- mperft-5.3-x86-64: 7.382s
- mperft-5.3-x86-64-v2: 6.357s (-13.9%)
- mperft-5.3-x86-64-v3: 6.003s ( -5.6%)
The x86-64-v2 version brings popcount and the x86-64-v3 version pext (+some compiler optimisations). So you do not lose much speed. The 128-bit version is slower, mainly because less transposition table entries are available using the same amount of memory.
gperft was incredibly fast. It is unfortunate the program is no more available.