From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9038ABC69 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:06:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l64K6YkQ007864 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:06:35 +0200 Received: from johnyaya ([151.201.127.58]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JKO00BEX7US7REC@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:06:34 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:06:29 -0400 From: "Grant Olson" Subject: RE: [Caml-list] ANN: Chess III Arena 0.5 In-reply-to: To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Daniel_B=FCnzli'?=" , Message-id: <002501c7be76$d0348630$ac01a8c0@johnyaya> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: Ace+EcHjbKoNngYsSki7NudI7QlrkwAY/5mA X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 468BFDCA.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml's:01 ocaml's:01 verizon:98 attitude:98 eating:98 caml-list:01 graphics:02 slower:02 optimization:03 sentence:04 0.5:94 anyway:05 ecrit:06 trick:06 standard:07 > Le 4 juil. 07 =E0 04:18, Grant Olson a =E9crit : >=20 > > You know I think I saw you post something similar before,=20 > and ignored=20 > > it because I didn't want to trick myself into thinking the=20 > GPU's speed=20 > > was actually Ocaml's speed. >=20 > This is complete nonsense. In any language you try to get=20 > most from your gpu, someone writing in C would do the same. > Your sentence translates to I will program badly on purpose=20 > to test ocaml's speed. I'm sure you wouldnt't do that. >=20 > And by the way _if_ your bottleneck is on the gpu or in cpu=20 > to gpu transfers this attitude will in no way test ocaml's=20 > performance. >=20 My point was offloading the work to another subsystem doesn't give me a = very good idea of the general-case performance of the language. For most programs the GPU is not a factor one way or the other. And yes I = realize I=92m still using the GPU to some extent so I'm already cheating. This = was a learning exercise, not an attempt to write high-performance production = code. Standard pre-mature optimization mantras come to mind as well. Incidentally, Jon's code seemed to run slower on my graphics card = anyway. Off to see if us Americans can reclaim the hot-dog eating world title, -Grant