Benchmarking tXtFL 2 vs. 3pre
Games per second on tXtFL 2 vs. tXtFL 3 pre
One of the limiting factors we faced with predictive simulations has been the time and CPU consumption required for automating multiple games. In tXtFL 2, we could only crank out roughly 500 simulations at a time, which could easily take an entire night and cost us half a gig of RAM (from storing all the text from every game).
With the new engine in place for tXtFL 3, we were able to reach 100,000 simulations for tXtFL Bowl 5.0 in a fraction of the time it took for 1,000 simulations on tXtFL 2 (over 2 sessions). The tests above show simple benchmarking of default teams (2009ers vs. 89ers), where tXtFL 3 runs about 860x faster. Put another way, tXtFL 2 takes 47.5 sec per game, whereas tXtFL 3 takes only a fraction of a second--0.055 sec--per game.
tXtFL 3 is still a work in progress, and we'll continue to focus on accuracy of predictions as well as speed.
One of the limiting factors we faced with predictive simulations has been the time and CPU consumption required for automating multiple games. In tXtFL 2, we could only crank out roughly 500 simulations at a time, which could easily take an entire night and cost us half a gig of RAM (from storing all the text from every game).
With the new engine in place for tXtFL 3, we were able to reach 100,000 simulations for tXtFL Bowl 5.0 in a fraction of the time it took for 1,000 simulations on tXtFL 2 (over 2 sessions). The tests above show simple benchmarking of default teams (2009ers vs. 89ers), where tXtFL 3 runs about 860x faster. Put another way, tXtFL 2 takes 47.5 sec per game, whereas tXtFL 3 takes only a fraction of a second--0.055 sec--per game.
tXtFL 3 is still a work in progress, and we'll continue to focus on accuracy of predictions as well as speed.
Comments
Post a Comment