TB test - HD v Flash
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:08 pm
I thought I would share these results here as they are very interesting...
Hardware.
Q6600 at 3.2Ghz - (9 x 356 @ 44412)
Gigabyte P965 DS3
HD Seagate 7200.10 16mb 320GB
and
Flash EMTEC Intuix S520 8 GB USB 2.0
Each engine was allocated 2GB Hash, or the maximum it could use (Naum 1GB).
5 Men TBs on either HD or Flash Memory
TB Cache 32MB
The machine was restarted between each test and any startup activity was allowed to finish before the test was started, the machine also had minimum background tasks e.g. no AV etc (standalone machine no network connection).
Attached are some Graphs + raw data
The position
8/3k4/p6r/5R2/PP5p/7K/8/8 w - - 0 1
was chosen as it causes a lot of TB access.
It should be noted that this test is a worst case scenario as in an actual game the TBs will be cached in any spare physical ram - and this explains the increase in nodes/sec as the test progresses.
Shaun
P.S. I will Update as I run more tests and I have a seconds Flash drive for comparison arriving next week...
Hardware.
Q6600 at 3.2Ghz - (9 x 356 @ 44412)
Gigabyte P965 DS3
HD Seagate 7200.10 16mb 320GB
and
Flash EMTEC Intuix S520 8 GB USB 2.0
Each engine was allocated 2GB Hash, or the maximum it could use (Naum 1GB).
5 Men TBs on either HD or Flash Memory
TB Cache 32MB
The machine was restarted between each test and any startup activity was allowed to finish before the test was started, the machine also had minimum background tasks e.g. no AV etc (standalone machine no network connection).
Attached are some Graphs + raw data
The position
8/3k4/p6r/5R2/PP5p/7K/8/8 w - - 0 1
was chosen as it causes a lot of TB access.
It should be noted that this test is a worst case scenario as in an actual game the TBs will be cached in any spare physical ram - and this explains the increase in nodes/sec as the test progresses.
Shaun
P.S. I will Update as I run more tests and I have a seconds Flash drive for comparison arriving next week...