Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 10:25:19 06/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2000 at 03:38:38, Albert Silver wrote: >On June 29, 2000 at 02:21:10, Gregor Overney wrote: > >>>Not even close yet. That hardware would be approximately 1% of the power of >>>the DB hardware. And that is being _very_ generous... >> >>1% is a pretty good estimate for a four processor machine using four P5-4 >>running at 1.5 GHz using a four channel RDRAM bus that delivers 3.2 GB of data. >>Estimate 500 kNodes per CPU times 4 = 2M Nodes = 1% of DB's avarage performance. > >If one CPU achieves 500k nodes, I doubt very much that 4 CPUs will achieve 2M >nodes, unless 100% efficiency has been achieved. Crafty is apparently the most >efficient at this level though only Bob would be able to say how well it should >do. No, believe it or not, Bob Hyatt is not the only competent chess programmer in the world. In any case, who says that DB was searching at 100% "efficiency"? (I assume you mean overhead from the parallel search.) DB was composed of HUNDREDS of processors, and each processor was pretty localized from the others. Compared to a PC program running on only 4 processors with a shared hash table, etc., the overhead of DB must have been tremendous. -Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.