Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 22:35:40 07/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2000 at 19:45:11, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>On July 25, 2000 at 17:29:34, Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>>On July 25, 2000 at 16:54:39, Alvaro Polo wrote:
>
>>>I worked for IBM as a scientist at the IBM Scientific Center in Madrid. I would
>>>very much more trust Hsu's number than "official IBM" numbers. PR's and
>>>marketers at IBM are not stupid people (my father was a country general manager
>>>there), they are on the contrary very intelligent, but they don't care that much
>>>about scientific exactness in documents directed to the general public. They
>>>probably wouldn't understand very well, for example, why the difference between
>>>256 and 480 processors is significant.
>>>
>>>Alvaro
>>
>>With all respect to your opinion I believe that P/R people very well
>>understand the value of numbers. If they don't they would do a very
>>poor job which I find hard to believe.
>>
>>Ed
>
>That was quite a statement from Alvaro. :)
>
>In any case, DB2 had 480 chess processors, not 256.
>
>Dave
Sigh. From the IBM pages again:
"The latest iteration of the Deep Blue computer is a 32-node
IBM RS/6000 SP high-performance computer, which
utilizes the new Power Two Super Chip processors
(P2SC). Each node of the SP employs a single
microchannel card containing 8 dedicated VLSI chess
processors, for a total of 256 processors working in
tandem. The net result is a scalable, highly parallel system
capable of calculating 60 billion moves within three minutes,
which is the time allotted to each player's move in classical
chess."
It says 256 processors. The URL:
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/meet/html/d.3.2.html
Then look at the logo, it says the re-match. So 256 processors.
Ed
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.