Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:36:38 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. > >Now how fast do i run at 1 node? Well that's like 15k nodes a second. That math is bad. I'll "race" you using any PIV of your choice, me using an 800mhz 21264 of my choice. And my lowly 800mhz processor will toast your doors off. Don't just assume that 375mhz is bad. The PPC is _not_ a bad machine. I have run on SP's... > >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 0.01 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.