Author: Slater Wold
Date: 03:26:33 09/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2001 at 21:46:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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 Looking around, I've seen some *reasonibly* priced used AlphaServers. It was just a thought! > >$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.