Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:02:21 04/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2002 at 22:09:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Fritz3 was under 1000 clocks a node at old P5 hardware which issued at most 2 instructions a clock. Now Frans is very good in programming such that he gets close to that, but definitely it's less than 2000 instructions a clock. Fritz3 when upgrading it to current hardware and improving hashtable a bit would search easily 20 ply or something in middlegame at tournament level. > > >> >>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 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.