Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:46:59 04/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2002 at 04:31:54, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 05, 2002 at 00:36:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>And it is pretty easy to interpret "early DB hardware" as either deep thought >>hardware or DB1 hardware... Since the whole "line" was finally known as "deep >>blue"... > >These are quite the semantic contortions you're going through. If you need to be >right so bad, fine. > What is "right" here? I simply explained _my_ statement which was written rather loosely. There is no "right" or "wrong" in this context. It was simply a clarification of what I meant. Seems pretty obvious that "early deep blue hardware" meant something other than "deep blue hardware"... >>>IIRC, DB could do a fast eval of a node, which took 2 cycles, and a slow eval, >>>which took 8 cycles. >>Something similar, although the "fast eval" might have been incremental.. and >>took no time... > >What do you mean, "something similar"? And "might have been"? If you have >numbers to contradict the ones I posted, by all means. Otherwise, I'm not sure >why you're replying. There _is_ no "precise number". There were three complete revisions of the chess processor. I haven't seen anything that said all three had the same number of cycles in each operation or that they didn't... > >>I think it would _clearly_ be faster than software... IE DB took ten clocks >>per _node_. What software program comes anywhere near that. More like >>3000 instructions per node, which turns into 4-5000 clocks most likely. > >Right, and when your chip runs at 12MHz, 10 cycles = 833 ns = 1666 cycles = >nearly 2000 instructions with a 2GHz MPU. If you want to point out flaws in the >way I estimated the FPGA's performance, go for it. But you're not going to >convince me of anything by saying that software can't evaluate nodes in 10 >cycles. That's obvious to anybody. > >-Tom I think you pointed out the flaw yourself. 2000 instructions at 2ghz is not _nearly_ enough to do a node. And a 12mhz FPGA is a very slow FPGA. 100mhz is more like it for SOTA... I'll take on that 2ghz general-purpose CPU any time you want...
This page took 0.02 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.