Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 13:26:28 04/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2002 at 23:25:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 08, 2002 at 06:57:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 07, 2002 at 12:09:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 07, 2002 at 01:00:55, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>>Last night I was cruising the CCC archives reading over discussions on various >>>>data representation approaches in chess programs, and I came across this >>>>statement from 1999 in this post: >>>>http://www.it.ro/ccc_search/ccc.php?art_id=39708 >>>> >>>>"Just wait 5 years and see if you can find a 32 bit machine left." >>>> >>>>Well we are 2 years away from the 5 year deadline. Do you still agree with this? >>> >>>Yes. The end is "in sight". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>I'm not trying to throw old quotes back at you or anything. I'm really more >>>>curious about how much longer it will be until 64-bit machines are the norm. >>>> >>>>I'm also curious if when the time comes that 64-bit machines are the norm, if >>>>they will be on par with the Hz speeds of the 32-bit machines. For example, >>>>right now you can get a 2.1 GHZ Athlon or 2.4 GHz P4 without having to take out >>>>a loan. If you want a 64-bit Itanium, you're looking at $2,500 - $7,000 for a >>>>chip that runs at 733-800 MHz (www.pricewatch.com). So once 64-bit machines are >>>>practical from a price standpoint, will they still be at a third of the speed we >>>>can get from a 32-bit machine? >>> >>>64 bit machines can run at identical clock speeds. The issue is price. As >>>demand increases, price will go down driving performance up. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>If my data from pricewatch isn't entirely accurate please correct me. E.g. if >>>>there are other 64-bit chips that are cheaper and faster than Itanium. Heck, how >>>>much would a good 64-bit system cost today? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Russell >>> >>> >>>There are plenty of chips cheaper than Itanium and far faster... but Intel >>>is going to set the standard. The other vendors (HP, DEC/COMPAQ/whatever they >>>are today, MIPS, IBM, have been doing 64 bit chips for years. Intel is _way_ >>>behind... >> >>I am not so sure about this. Did you already try mckinley? >>6 integer units or something? >> >>that'll kick butt of course. > > >I was just contacted by someone working on a SPEC test for a Mckinley. He >reported a speed of roughly clock speed / 1000 for Crafty on that machine. >Which is very good. The 21264 produced a clock speed / 750 which was a bit >better... Note that the above produce raw NPS numbers. clock speed is in >millions or billions of clock cycles per second. IE the 21264 we tested was >a 600mhz machine producing 800K nodes per second. 800K = 600000000 / 750. > >Eugene might be able to tweak this higher since he is in the compiler group >up at MS... and has access to more recent compiler versions... Will there be support for McKinleys PopCnt-instructions in the official Crafty? Isn't this required if they are to be used in SPEC? Ralf
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.