Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:12:59 04/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2002 at 07:02:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. Aren't you talking about the _old_ Fritz using root-preprocessing and piece/square tables? > >Fritz3 when upgrading it to current hardware and improving hashtable >a bit would search easily 20 ply or something in middlegame at tournament >level. Did Fritz 3 use forward pruning? without that it has no chance to hit 20 plies. > >> >> >>> >>>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.