Hi, I have my own SL compiled binary on this 8-core Nehalem Mac Pro. As soon as I'm able, I do some testing and report back.
Louis On Nov 29, 2010, at 1:11 PM, pierre zakia wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
