Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: What is the approximate ELO of Fritz @ 70 Ghz ?

Author: Jeremiah Penery

Date: 10:48:15 09/06/01

Go up one level in this thread


On September 06, 2001 at 13:30:32, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On September 06, 2001 at 13:06:24, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>
>>On September 06, 2001 at 10:17:15, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>More accurately, note that memory speeds (random access speeds) have not
>>>increased _at all_.  DRAM was 100ns (or slightly less) 10 years ago.  It is
>>>_still_ that slow today.
>>
>>
>>You can get 5ns DRAM (or possibly faster) today.
>
>
>Look again.  There is no memory on the market that will let you _randomly_
>access any byte and get the result back in 5ns.  They can transfer large chunks
>and make it appear to be very fast.  But it still takes just as long today to
>dump a capacitor and make the 0/1 determination as it did 10 years ago.
>
>The Cray's are the best indicator.  Just compare the hardware timings for memory
>access starting at the Cray-1 (8 clocks) and ending up with the T90 (50 clocks)
>
>Cray 1 ran at 12.5 ns clock, T90 at a 2ns clock.  The memory speed over that
>20 year period is pretty constant.
>
>8*12.5 = 100ns.  2*50 = 100ns.
>
>If a PC had a 5ns memory, it would be able to sustain 1.6 gigabytes of memory
>transfers per second (that is 200 million cycles per second * 8 bytes per
>cycle).  The PC can actually sustain more like 100 megabytes per second of
>memory bandwidth.  Which is closer to an average of 8 bytes every 100
>nanoseconds than it is to 8 bytes every 5 nanoseconds.
>
>Ignore the "PC400" specification.  That is not for the first byte.  That is
>for the synchronous transfer clock speed _after_ the DRAM data has been dumped
>into an SRAM on-chip cache.  Once you get the data into SRAM, you can dump it
>onto the bus at most any speed you can afford.  but getting it from the DRAM
>is _still_ a big problem.  That is one reason early Cray's didn't even bother
>with DRAM and used bipolar memory.  But eventually cost drove them to DRAM and
>a static memory access time.

Here is an interesting article:  http://www.hardocp.com/articles/memory/ddrovr/

While not as fast as I thought, it's still a lot faster than they were 10 years
ago.



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.