Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:38:30 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2001 at 22:13:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 26, 2001 at 22:05:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >Oh there are a few differences with 1997. Machines producing >0.60 technology were when bought not so expensive as the 0.18 >technology machines of today. > >I can be a million wrong, but i think that ASML here in netherlands >sells machines where you can press cpu's with for quite a price. > >Around 12 million dollar a machine. that's 0.18 technology where K7 >is made from. > >At the end of the year the intel factories will be equipped with the >new standard micron technology. that'll be a lot more as 12 million >dollar a machine. > >Such a machine can be used to press CPUs. > >Unless Hsu finds a university which offers him to press somewhere >those cpu's he would probably have way more problems nowadays >to press a cpu somewhere as 10 years ago. > >The machines get more and more expensive because the technique needed >to press such high technology is getting more expensive. > >Every year it's more unlikely that someone can make his own cpus, despite >that designing a cpu has become way simpler as 10 years ago because of >the extra tools that are there! > >Where probably many years ago several could make their own cpu to do >whatever nowadays it is getting quite uncommon. > >I do not know whether designing a chess chip from 0.12 technoloy is a >lot harder as designing one for 0.60 technology. > >Bob can answer perhaps! There are two parts to designing such parts. 1. Laying out the gates and pathways on a single chip, leaving room for pads on the edges for connection to the carrier. That is done by silicon compilers today. 2. Then you have the electrical properties to deal with, resistance, capacitance, inductance, cross-coupling, you-name-it. When his book comes out, you will find out just how serious this was in deep blue. They even kludged up some work-arounds to avoid some specific types of cross-talk that screwed up results. I don't think it harder to design for faster clock speeds from a pure design point of view. But working around all the electrical property pitfalls is a nightmare... You go faster by either making everything smaller, or ramping up voltage. As you make it smaller, the voltage requirement shrinks as well, which helps with heat. But at those ghz frequencies, amazing things happen on a chip. Things that have to be accounted for... > >>On April 26, 2001 at 19:58:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 26, 2001 at 18:11:20, Rajen Gupta wrote: >>> >>>>hi bob: you mentioned in you recent post regarding hsu's chip being capable of >>>>doing 1 billion nodes per sec-is this an advanced version of the "chess chips" >>>>which were present oin the deep blue?-as far as i remember the deep blue had a >>>>number of general purpose powerpc processors and a number of what they termed >>>>"chess chips" if this is so >> >>>NO... here is the math. DB2 used 480 chess processors. About 1/2 of the >>>processors ran at 20mhz, the other half ran at 24mhz. 20mhz turns into 2M >>>nodes per second, 24 turns into 2.4M nodes per second. The easiest way to >>>evaluate this is 480 * 2.2M nodes per second, which is roughly 1 billion nodes >>>per second peak. He also reported that he drove the chess chips at about >>>70% duty cycle with the SP2. So the actual NPS was 480 * 2.2M * .7, which >>>is roughly 700M nodes per second. He scaled this back to 200M, I assume, >>>based on the search overhead which makes many of the nodes searched not >>>necessary if the search wasn't parallel. IE in Crafty, on a quad xeon/700, >>>I search about 1.5M nodes per second peak. But roughly 1/4th of that would >>>not be searched by a single cpu, so my "effective" nps is lower. Say 1.1M or >>>so. >> >>>I assume this is why Hsu quoted 200M, because he certainly gave the 480 >>>number, and the 2.0/2.4M nps per chip number in several different places... >> >>200M nodes a second let's get to that. .7 i never read that number >>anywhere, woudl be amazing if you can keep 'em busy for .7 considering >>a single SP processor addressed 30 processors... >> >>Anyway the question of Rajen was probably : "why does Hsu think that >>if he builds a new cpu it is as powerful as hundreds of chips which >>in 1997 shaped deep blue 2". >> >>Well that's easy to answer. The deep blue chips were even in 1997 made >>from outdated technology. 0.60 microns. Todays standard is 0.18. Note >>GEOFORCE3 graphics card is already 0.15 microns and real soon we'll >>see 0.12 or 0.13 whatever getting used. >> >>Suppose Hsu would redesign those 20Mhz and 24Mhz processors (new info >>to me btw) in 0.12 or 0.13 technology, then a single cpu would be >>faster as 480 chessprocessors were in 1997. I don't doubt that! >> >>I have no idea to how many Mhz it would be clocked but it sure would >>be way faster! >> >>Compare for example that we can buy machines of 1 Ghz. I remember >>still a few years ago i had a 20Mhz 386sx (16 bits/32 bits) machine. >>that's more as a factor 50 difference in speed though in advantage of >>my nowadays fast Ghz machine :) >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>1)how can one single chip be twice as powerful as the entire deep blue, which >>>>had hundreds of processors? >>> >>>You mis-read what I said. I was talking about the peak NPS for the full DB2 >>>machine. 1,000 M nodes per second. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>2)are these chess chips of deep blue and the superchip of hsu good for only >>>>chess calculations or can it act as a general purpose processor? >>> >>>Special chess purpose only... >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>thanks >>>> >>>>rajen
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.