Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 20:02:08 06/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2000 at 21:42:59, Albert Silver wrote:
>On June 29, 2000 at 13:25:19, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>:-))) Clearly you are trying to trick me Oh Evil One! But I am not fooled by
>your daring attempts to lure me into your dastardly plots!
>
>Seriously though, all I said was that as far as I knew ("apparently") Crafty was
>the most efficient multi-processor chess program among the micros. This wasn't
>based on any worshipping of the 'Great One', but on what I had been led to
>understand from my reading here. If there is a microcomputer chess program that
>makes better use of multi-processor systems, please just say which.
AFAIK, Crafty uses a fairly common/simple MP algorithm. It's possible that other
micro programs are not using a better algorithm, but I doubt they're doing any
worse.
>>In any case, who says that DB was searching at 100% "efficiency"?
>
>Actually, I wasn't talking about DB's efficiency at all, but merely the
>well-known figure of 200M NPS. Greg had said that a four processor machine would
>reach 1% of DB average performance, and said this by merely multiplying the NPS
>achieved by each processor. I questioned this conclusion and waited to be
>corrected, that's all.
If you're just talking about NPS overhead, it's not that significant. Adding up
the NPS is pretty valid.
-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.