Hello, FYI: SINGLE processor core running an AFL formula is able to saturate memory bandwidth in majority of most common operations/functions if total array sizes used in given formula exceedes DATA cache size.
You need to understand that AFL runs with native assembly speed when using array operations. A simple array multiplication like this X = Close * H; // array multiplication gets compiled to just 8 assembly instructions: loop: 8B 54 24 58 mov edx,dword ptr [esp+58h] 00465068 46 inc esi ; increase counters 00465069 83 C0 04 add eax,4 0046506C 3B F7 cmp esi,edi 0046506E D9 44 B2 FC fld dword ptr [edx+esi*4-4] ; get element of close array 00465072 D8 4C 08 FC fmul dword ptr [eax+ecx-4] ; multiply by element of high array 00465076 D9 58 FC fstp dword ptr [eax-4] ; store result 00465079 7C E9 jl loop ; continue until all elements are processed As you can see there are three 4 byte memory accesses per loop iteration (2 reads each 4 bytes long and 1 write 4 byte long) On my (2 year old) 2GHz Athlon x2 64 single iteration of this loop takes 6 nanoseconds (see benchmark code below). So, during 6 nanoseconds we have 8 byte reads and 4 byte store. Thats (8/(6e-9)) bytes per second = 1333 MB per second read and 667 MB per second write simultaneously i.e. 2GB/sec combined ! Now if you look at memory benchmarks: http://community.compuserve.com/n/docs/docDownload.aspx?webtag=ws-pchardware&guid=6827f836-8c33-4063-aaf5-c93605dd1dc6 you will see that 2GB/s is THE LIMIT of system memory speed on Athlon x64 (DDR2 dual channel) And that's considering the fact that Athlon has superior-to-intel on-die integrated memory controller (hypertransfer) // benchmark code - for accurrate results run it on LARGE arrays - intraday database, 1-minute interval, 50K bars or more) GetPerformanceCounter(1); for(k = 0; k < 1000; k++ ) X = C * H; "Time per single iteration [s]="+1e-3*GetPerformanceCounter()/(1000*BarCount); Only really complex operations that use *lots* of FPU (floating point) cycles such as trigonometric (sin/cos/tan) functions are slow enough for the memory to keep up. Of course one may say that I am using "old" processor, and new computers have faster RAM and that's true but processor speeds increase FASTER than bus speeds and the gap between processor and RAM becomes larger and larger so with newer CPUs the situation will be worse, not better. Best regards, Tomasz Janeczko amibroker.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "dloyer123" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:02 PM Subject: [amibroker] Re: Dual-core vs. quad-core > All of the cores have to share the same front bus and northbridge. > The northbridge connects the cpu to memory and has limited bandwidth. > > If several cores are running memory hungry applications, the front > buss will saturate. > > The L2 cache helps for most applications, but not if you are burning > through a few G of quote data. The L2 cache is just 4-8MB. > > The newer multi core systems have much faster front buses and that > trend is likely to continue. > > So, it would be nice if AMI could support running multi cores, even > if it was just running different optimization passes on different > cores. That would saturate the front bus, but take advantage of all > of the memory bandwidth you have. It would really help those multi > day walkforward runs. > > > > --- In [email protected], "markhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> If you have a runtime penalty when running 2 independent AB jobs on > a >> Core Duo CPU it might be caused by too less memory (swapping to > disk) >> or other tasks which are also running (e.g. a web browser, audio >> streamer or whatever). You can check this with a process explorer >> which shows each tasks CPU utilisation. Similar, 4 AB jobs on a Core >> Quad should have nearly no penalty in runtime. >> >> Tomasz stated that multi-thread optimization does not scale good > with >> the CPU number, but it is not clear to me why this is the case. In > my >> understanding, AA optimization is a sequential process of running > the >> same AFL script with different parameters. If I have an AFL with >> significantly long runtime per optimization step (e.g. 1 minute) the >> overhead for the multi-threading should become quite small and >> independent tasks should scale nearly with the number of CPUs (as > long >> as there is sufficient memory, n threads might need n-times more >> memory than a single thread). For sure the situation is different if >> my single optimization run takes only a few millisecs or seconds, > then >> the overhead for multi-thread-managment goes up ... >> >> Maybe Tomasz can give some detailed comments on that issue? >> >> Best regards, >> Markus >> > > > ------------------------------------ > > Please note that this group is for discussion between users only. > > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG: > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ > > For other support material please check also: > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
