Author: gerold daniels
Date: 08:00:24 01/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2005 at 10:33:04, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. thanks for the reply vincent i read that the cell chip would have a much larger cache. 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.