Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:38:40 09/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2001 at 23:08:10, Slater Wold wrote: >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! > Your alpha numbers are not particularly good. Tim Mann ran a 21264/600 last year and his single cpu machine was giving numbers like this on win at chess: total positions searched.......... 300 number right...................... 300 number wrong...................... 0 percentage right.................. 100 percentage wrong.................. 0 total nodes searched.............. 236973211.0 average search depth.............. 4.5 nodes per second.................. 783641 White(1): execution complete. And yes, I mean that 800K was _one_ cpu. You probably didn't use the best alpha options to compile it. You should be seeing 1.5M nodes per second on that dual, or a bit more. Tim's machine was 600mhz... >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.