Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:31:32 06/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2000 at 23:02:08, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>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
Why the need to 'speculate' on what I am doing? I am not doing a "common/
simple" MP algorithm. Not by a long shot. You only have to study the source
to see, of course, rather than guessing.
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.