Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 13:41:05 10/23/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 1997 at 16:17:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 23, 1997 at 15:39:05, Chris Whittington wrote: > >> >>For Bob and Bruce: >> >>Class above = 2 times. As in speed doubling every 18 months, RAM price >>halving every whenever. >> >>2 times is a class above and unacceptable IMO. 1.5 times I personally >>find too much. 1.3 I could live with. >> >>Bruce says he is just short of 2 times with his 500 alpha. Plus then the >>AMD 233's are now going to be AMD 200's. >> >>Bob can't quantify it well because of the 64 bitness. >> >>So I'll buy this: we stop arguing over 500 alphas. IMO they are still >>too much, but I'll stop arguing it. >> >>Bob and Bruce are confident they'll get 500's. They are less confident >>that the 766's will turn up. Bob and Bruce both say they don't want to >>try and get a class above, just they want to stay competitive. Don't we >>all. >> >>So, peace proposal, you guys perform on 500 alphas, leave the 766's in >>their boxes, don't use them at the tourney, don't give them out to >>others. What Dark Thought will do, Dark Thought will do, but I hope they >>can run of 500 as well. >> >>So guys, how about it, peace and moderate alphas ? > > >I don't have a firm "766". But my concern would be for someone to ask >for such a machine, get a company to jump thru several hoops to get 3 of >them assembled, tested, and shipped, with the promise that they would >get >showcased at an event that would generate a reasonable amount of >publicity, >particularly if they do well. > >This is the reason I would hate to revert to an AMD machine, period. You don;t have to, you've said you've got 500 Mhz alphas, no problems. > We >asked for, and DEC responded with a machine, they are paying for >shipping, >installing software, and so forth. We'd look foolish if they visited >and >found us on an AMD. They probably wouldn't say anything, but we'd never >get another loaner from them. > >I've planned on a plain /500 from the day DEC said "yes". We'd hoped >for >a 766, but I'm still skeptical that the machine will function at that >clock >rate. IE I wonder if they have run a chess engine that beats on the >integer >functional units within the cpu, to see if eventually heat build-up >becomes >intolerable? So that was an outside shot for us anyway. Ok, so you've not answered the question, here it is again: >>So guys, how about it, peace and moderate alphas ? That was the question. > >> >>And for next year, lets discuss: >> >>a) no two types of sponsor machines as at Paderborn >> >>b) nobody more than 1.3 times the provided machines ... >> > >I think you are asking for trouble. Either make it uniform platform or >not. But 1.3 is a problem. IE how do we decide on 1.3? What benchmark >do we run? If I am getting 1.4, can't I just fake my node count by 10% >internally to make it look only 1.3x faster? > >I really believe there will be a 1ghz PPC next year. How fast you run >depends on how you are written and whether you have studied that >architecture or not. > >I'd say go uniform, period, if this is perceived as a problem. Cut the >macs out, the alphas out, the MIPS out, IBM workstations out, everyone >except for an Intel X86 at YYY mhz. If you want it to be fair, that's >the only way. Otherwise, it is simply too hard to compare machine A to >machine B, since programs vary. And using a program is a dangerous >thing >anyway as that then becomes open to skullduggery. We could make a machine committee and argue it out. My guideline would be 1.3 times. Argument could be open, like on this server. Go for that ? NB the other question above ... Chris > > >> >> >>Chris Whittington
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.