Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:09:03 04/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2002 at 00:53:39, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 05, 2002 at 14:46:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Seems pretty obvious that "early deep blue hardware" meant something other >>than "deep blue hardware"... > >Yeah, except you said "original," not "early." Do you consider Chiptest >"original DB hardware"? Because I don't. I certainly consider "deep thought" to be "original deep blue hardware". As does most everyone, since that is where it _started_... > >>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... > >So in other words, you don't know the numbers (because if you did, you would >know whether or not they were the same). So your information-free replies >continue to mistify me. > >>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... > >First, my own program would search more than 1M NPS on a 2GHz chip. Which means >fewer than 2k cycles per node. Which means ~2k instructions per node, and >possibly less. Which means that not only are 2k instructions "nearly" enough to >do a node, they ARE enough to do a node. I believe I said a "real chess program"... I don't know of any "real" engines that search 2K instructions per node... I'm also talking about _real_ nodes... Just to be clear... > >Second, what the hell are you talking about with regard to FPGA speeds? "A 12MHz >FPGA is a very slow FPGA"? It's easy to come up with some logic that would run >at less than 1MHz on the fastest FPGA ever. Your apparent notion that FPGA clock >speed is somehow independent of the design that's loaded into the FPGA speaks >volumes about your ignorance of what an FPGA actually is. > >-Tom If that is as _fast_ as the specific FPGA you want to use can be clocked, then _yes_ it is "very slow". Nothing more to say... There are parts available for a year or more that run over 75mhz... A FPGA certainly has a max clock speed regardless of _what_ is "loaded into it". This clock speed might be significantly lower due to the thing being "loaded" of course. But there _is_ a max no matter what is loaded, and _that_ is the raw speed number I was referencing.. Everything has a max due to various things from gate delays to whatever 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.