Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:24:57 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 22:02:57, Chris Carson wrote: >. Nope. Please read again. I _clearly_ said it peaked at 1B nodes per second. The math is trivial: 480 chess processors, 1/2 at 2M nodes per second, the other half at 2.4M nodes per second. When you multiply that out, you get 1B+ nodes per second. Hsu figured that he _averaged_ 70% utilization for the processors. Down to 700M nodes per second. He then took 30% of that as his dissertation says that his parallel search efficiency was 30% for that many processors. IE a _honest_ 200M+ on average, while he was _really_ searching at 700M nodes per second but 70% of the nodes are search overhead. Deep Junior doesn't report search overhead. I will safely assume his is no better than mine, which means about 1/4 of his nodes are wasted on average, with peaks way above (and below) that number. Did I lose you somewhere along the way? I have pointed this math out several times. You only seem to be able to counter with arcane "wrong again" headings with no substance to back up your title. My math above is correct. It has been known for 3 years now. It isn't a surprise to anybody. I use the 1B nps figure because _everybody_ is quoting raw NPS, crafty included. Hsu quotes a realistic number but nobody else is and the 1B peak makes it easier to compare max to max. And 1B _is_ the right number whether you like it or not. Just do the math...
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.