Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:33:04 01/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2005 at 09:48:07, gerold daniels wrote: >On January 29, 2005 at 09:09:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On January 29, 2005 at 08:31:27, Jason Kent wrote: >> >>>On January 29, 2005 at 08:28:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On January 29, 2005 at 08:20:07, Jason Kent wrote: >>>> >>>>Your machine will look like a dual machine. The OS doesn't know better than that >>>>it is 2 processor machine. >>>> >>>>>It looks like by the third quarter of this year, both intel and amd will be >>>>>selling dual cores. Are they basically handled as two processors under task >>>>>manager, and software? I'm guessing this is going mean that to get the most out >>>>>of your cpu, you will have to buy all the Deep versions. Maybe that is why SMK >>>>>decided to seperate the programs? >>>>>Jason >>>> >>>>I won't comment on SMK, nor on chessbase, but it's obvious that if the intel CEO >>>>says that intel will produce ONLY dual core cpu's within a year and nearly >>>>nothing else, that only parallel software will work for you. >>>> >>>>Paying extra for something that just uses a normal single cpu, is a very bad >>>>thing. It means basically you have normally spoken a crippled software program, >>>>as > 90% of all cpu's will be dual core. >>>> >>>>Vincent >>> >>>It sounds like there will be plenty of programming needed to fix all of the >>>current software to make it SMP compatible. Since I will be coming out of >>>school in another year or so, hopefully it will be easy to find work. :D >> >>Majority of applications that can eat any amount of cpu cycles are already >>parallel. >> >>Please note that search is one of the hardest to parallellize problems, because >>nowadays important is that your parallel search maintains the same branching >>factor like a single cpu search does. For example in databases parallel search >>is pretty trivial to make. > >good morning are the dual core better than the single processor and what about >the new cell chip. For chess the dual cores will be 1.8 - 2.0 better in scaling. For diep simply 2.0 scaling nearly. The cell processor, not much is known about it. See what i wrote in aceshardware about that. The only info i could find of someone speculating what it would be is that there will be different versions. One cheapo version which is put in cheapo game consoles and won't be able to impress much. The highend version i saw someone predict 4.6ghz for it in 0.065 which i frankly doubt they will achieve that so easily with it. Basically if i understand well it is a special processor which has 1 main core with 8 vector helpers. Depending upon how much those are vectorized and how many integer instruction units those helpers will have, it will be a fast or slow processor for chess. Then secondly real important, perhaps most important, will be the communication speed between the helper cores. On paper it should get 250 gflop, that's however at 4.6Ghz which is a speed i seriously doubt they will get for vector processors. Let's just sit and wait for it. Knowing IBM it won't be a serious processor for us chessprogrammers to consider, just like power5 is not serious for us either. >gerold.
This page took 0.01 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.