Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 20:06:28 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2001 at 22:38:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. this book of him must get thousands of pages as he's already writing for like 2.5 years at it? >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... So he's more a hardware designer as a software designer! >> > > >> >>>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.