Author: Lonnie Cook
Date: 15:32:47 09/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2001 at 18:20:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 23, 2001 at 15:30:08, Lonnie Cook wrote: > >>* It weighs 106 tons >> >>* costs 110M for the unit itself (doesn't include the ungodly sum to run it >>every day) >> >>* Has 8,192 IBM Power3 processors > >>* 12.3 trillion ops per sec. >> >>* took 28 tractor-trailer trucks to deliver >> >>this was the part that astounded me. It said it was 1,000 X's faster than Deep >>Blue!! >> >>so we're talking about a machine that in theory could do 200,000,000,000 nps!! > >Noop. > >IBM power3 processors. i do not know what speed they run at. Let's guess >they run at 375Mhz. Hehe , a cheated guess kind of. > >Now i have some numbers on these processors, but those are a few years old >of course. These processors suck bigtime of course. NO one wants to run >on 375Mhz processors nowadays. But well let's assume that at a stupid >cluster which ASCI white is, that you can get a decent speedup. Vin, You're right as usual! I went here and checked all the specs: http://www.llnl.gov/asci/platforms/white/hardware/#Config > >Now how fast do i run at 1 node? Well that's like 15k nodes a second. > >Still probably optimistic number of nodes a second. > >So at 8192 processors, from which you can perhaps use a 1000 at a time, >I would get 15M nodes a second. > >Now that looks great, but that's of course on a CLUSTER. Speedup perhaps >10%. 1.5M nodes a second effectively, but the bigger the depth the less >the speedup gets as the branching factor will be worse, unless i accept >that the thing first slows down at each processor (which is a likely >approach) and pray that the latency is more than fast at this thing. > >So you sure outsearch deep blue by many plies, but not if a new deep >blue would be pressed on a chip using nullmove and DDR-RAM at it. > >So you are not faster in NPS, but search improvements would let it >search deeper. that still wouldn't make my DIEP faster on this machine >than DB was in nodes a second. > >Of course DBs focus upon only getting the maximum number of NPS (that's >how they advertised the thing. search depths have no commercial value) >sure made it faster than what i would get on this machine. > >>Is this really so for those in the know with hardware and these types of >>machines?
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.