Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 18:46:56 09/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2001 at 00:46:35, Slater Wold wrote: >*Perhaps* when I sell my 2x1.7Ghz Intel, I will invest in an Alpha. That should >be interesting! dual alpha 833Mhz 21264, standard edition: $20000.00 $20k and don't expect you can ever upgrade it to a faster Mhz those cpu's, whereas you sure can update your intels and amds to some extend. It's impossible to clock those alpha's higher than 1Ghz. Alpha died btw. It's called intel now. IA64 is going to be the future for 64 bits land. Poor 64 bitters... >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! Tim Mann noted, perhaps he can explain that here again as i might have misunderstood, that the alpha duals are not factor 2.0 HARDWARE speedup like intel, AMD is. those 64 bits cpus suffer somehow from being put in dual. Don't ask me why. I'm no expert on buses, but i heart the P4 has a wider bus than the P3. It didn't speed DIEP up a bit AFAIK. A single read from RDRAM is 128 bytes wide. that's 1024 bits btw. That 256 bits wide bus from alpha, that's just 32 bytes? Note DDR ram is 64 bytes at once AFAIK. That's 512 bits. latency 1.5 times faster than that from RDRAM though. >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.