Author: Slater Wold
Date: 20:08:10 09/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2001 at 22:36:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Here's a race on Crafty, using the same Crafty and settings: AMD 2x1.4Ghz Total nodes: 95124934 Raw nodes per second: 1219550 Total elapsed time: 78 SMP time-to-ply measurement: 8.205128 Alpha 21264(EV6) (2x667mhz) Total nodes: 70350064 Raw nodes per second: 901923 Total elapsed time: 78 SMP time-to-ply measurement: 8.205128 Interesting! Slate > >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 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.