Author: Slater Wold
Date: 21:46:35 09/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2001 at 23:38:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... My 2x1.4Ghz gets 299/300 in the same amount of time. The only one it doesn't get, from what I understand, it did get it on that version. (The version Tim Mann used.) The machine I quoted WAS Tim Manns machine! As given on Michel's website of Crafty benches. (http://home.wanadoo.nl/michel.langeveld/CraftyBench/craftybench_hardware_withouthash.html) I did not compile that Crafty. I am guessing Tim Mann did. I admit, Alpha's are impressive. Just not practical for me. As often people tell me, a 2x1.4Ghz is not practical for them. There are positions where I get 1.2M nps, and some where I've hit 2M nps. The average (in a real game) is about 1.5M. *Perhaps* when I sell my 2x1.7Ghz Intel, I will invest in an Alpha. That should be interesting! One question: Obviously a node on an Alpha is not equal to a node on a x86 system. Mind sharing why? Or giving me some references to read up on. I've only been around a few Alpha machines, and that was pretty recently. And they were all running Windows! Thanks Bob! Slate > > > > >>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.