Philippe, I did the test again with only X11 running (no Airport, no Ethernet connection). The results are: 1 thread: 52 000 000 2 thread: 90 3 thread: 104 4 thread: 40 5 thread: 40 6 thread: 39 7 thread: 39 8 thread: 39
3 thread is still the winner. Why ? I am running the build 0.9.0 (downloaded from gnubg.org) that was compiled for OSX Leopard (in June 2008) As I wrote, it runs under OSX Snow Leopard, but I never had any issues with this build like crash, freeze, blurred 3D or something else. Pierre ________________________________ De : "[email protected]" <[email protected]> À : [email protected] Envoyé le : Dim 28 novembre 2010, 18h 01min 20s Objet : Bug-gnubg Digest, Vol 96, Issue 11 Send Bug-gnubg mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Bug-gnubg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Optimal settings for MacBookPro (Philippe Michel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:20:43 +0100 (CET) From: Philippe Michel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Optimal settings for MacBookPro To: pierre zakia <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Sat, 27 Nov 2010, pierre zakia wrote: > What are the optimal settings for gnubg installed on a MacBook Pro 15" Intel > Core i7 2.66 GHz (April 2010 model) ? > The build is Version 0.9.0, running on Snow Leopard (10.6.5) without any > problem; > > I have played changing figures in Settings/options/others/Eval threads from 1 >to > > 10, guessing 4 will be optimal. > But strangely enough, I got the best figure in the evaluation speed for 3, > larger than 110 000 000 (better than with 1 or 2) and plummeting to 40 000 > 000 > > with 4. > Any clue ? I would have guessed 4 as well, and this is what I get on a similar configuration (dual core with hyperthreading, running linux) : 1 thread 44000000 2 87 3 96 4 121 5 95 6 106 7 109 8 115 Maybe there was something else running on your machine that was hogging one thread, but if this is the case your decrease for the 5th active thread is much more dramatic than mine. > What is the optimal figure to put in the Cache Size box ? The default should be fine for anything but "long" jobs like analyzing matches at 4ply or long rollouts. For these it is useful to increase it but it won't make a huge difference. On the other hand, you probably have plenty of memory so increasing the cache to the maximum available in the GUI is almost free. > Any other default settings I should change ? Not really a setting, but since it looks like you built it from the sources, I found that compiling with the -funroll-loops option helps. This was with gcc, though, not Apple's clang. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg End of Bug-gnubg Digest, Vol 96, Issue 11 *****************************************
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
