Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:08:50 08/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2003 at 13:40:25, Christophe Theron wrote: >On August 19, 2003 at 10:29:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 18, 2003 at 12:08:35, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On August 17, 2003 at 22:15:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 17, 2003 at 03:37:22, Johan de Koning wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 16, 2003 at 05:13:23, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 16, 2003 at 03:24:47, Johan de Koning wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Nondeterminism is something you can live with. Forget about getting >>>>>>>>the engine working on multiprocessor if you don't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So far you sound like someone trying to mimic Vincent. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>But you sound like someone who avoided my point :) >>>>>> >>>>>>At some point you must choose between determinism and performance. >>>>>>I don't want to go to lengths to keep the engine deterministic only >>>>>>to find out later it can't be maintained AND I've lost time and >>>>>>speed trying to put off the inevitable. >>>>> >>>>>I'm not avoiding your point, I'm simply denying it. :-) >>>>> >>>>>There isn't such a thing as the point of no determinism, there are many points >>>>>at which choices can be made. If performance gain is small (playing games) I >>>>>will prefer determinism and simplicity. If gain is large (interactive analysis) >>>>>I will prefer determinism and perfection. In case determinism is impossible >>>>>(deep) I will prefer to maintain determinism for all other cases. >>>>> >>>>>>Hence the Santa Claus reference. You can stubbornly keep believing, >>>>>>but one day, he'll stop bringing presents. Or maybe it was just me who >>>>>>was a bad boy. >>>>> >>>>>If you quit being a bad boy Santa will return. :-) >>>>> >>>>>... Johan >>>> >>>> >>>>If you ever do a parallel search, forget about determinism. If you don't, >>>>forget about winning games. :) In another 5 years _all_ computers will >>>>have more than one cpu, on the same chip. >>> >>> >>> >>>Bob it seems that you have a very selective definition of the term "computer" >>>and that you have chosen to ignore a very large part of the computerized devices >>>that real people use every day. >>> >>>Less than 5% of all the computers on the planet will have more than one CPU in >>>10 years from now. >> >>Would you care to make a wager? 100% of _all_ intel processors sold today >>have two procesors, in a form called "hyper-threading". This will be extended >>over the next few years until a single "cpu" is really two or four completely >>independent processors. >> >>Just hide and watch... > > > >Hyper threading does not require specific programming. The discussion initiated >from this point (specific programming for multiple processors generating >indeterminism). > > > Oh but it does. Hyper-threading is _exactly_ the same as having two processors. You can use two processors to run two programs, or you can modify the program to use two processors on a single task... > > >>And no, I don't care about palms and the like. I'm talking about the >>traditional desktop/laptop PC. Times they are a'changing... > > > >Yes I knew we were not talking about the same population. You don't care about >the million of handhelds out there, you don't care about 400 to 500 million >mobile phones sold each year... Correct... > >That's fine with me. It's just your philosophy so there is nothing to argue. >It's just that there are also people out there who care about the population you >have chosen to not count in your stats. > > And that's ok. So wait 10 years. your phone will have two processors. > > > >>>I would even tend to think that at this time and in the foreseeable future the >>>percentage of multiple CPU computers is not going to grow (in the population of >>>all the computers built every year). >> >>You had better check your numbers. I just taught a parallel programming >>class with 52 students. 9 of them had dual-processor machines. > > > >Your class is not representative of the rest of the world, I hope you realize >that. > > > > > >>>In the context of this discussion, multiple CPU computers are for me computers >>>that require explicit programming in order to take advantage of the extra CPUs. >>> >>> >> >>Same here... to an extent. However, if you do as my wife does, and fire >>off a huge database query, and then do something _else_ while she is waiting, >>then that second processor comes in very handy, with no additional programming >>on her part... >> >>Or if you are compiling lots of stuff. >> >>Or -you-name-it ... > > > >I agree with you here but it's something else. I did not argue that it was not a >good thing to have several processors. I just argue that the vast majority of >computers have only one and will continue to. > >The number of multiple CPUs computer might increase. It's trivial to make that >point and I would not argue against it. > >The important thing to note is that the number of single CPU computers >percentage is increasing even more due to the market extension of the >information technology. > > > > > > Christophe
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.