Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 09:05:39 04/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2002 at 11:24:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 19, 2002 at 02:20:45, Michael Williams wrote: > >>On April 18, 2002 at 21:46:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 18, 2002 at 16:33:55, Martin Andersen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 18, 2002 at 16:10:02, Sally Weltrop wrote: >>>> >>>>>A Japanese machine records the fastest "floating point" calculation >>>>>speed - over 35 trillion calculations per second. This is five times >>>>>faster than the previous record holder, IBM's ASCI White system. >>>>> >>>>>http://www.processrequest.com/apps/redir.asp?link=XbddafaeBG >>>> >>>>I'm no expert, but I don't think chess programs use floating >>>>point calculations. >>>> >>>>Martin >>> >>> >>>Only because on PC machines, integer math is faster. If FP was faster, >>>we'd all be using that. On some machines, it is faster.. >> >>Would you be so kind as to elaborate on this (fp)? >>I'd really appreciate it, and I'm also pretty ignorant on such matters. >>Thanks in advance. > >fp = floating point. > >to say it rude: 234 is integer 234.988001 is float >see the point in it :) > >for business apps all you need is an old 386 with floating point processor >(=fpu) > >for all kind of scientific bad written apps you can however >use a big machine and run the approximation software faster >if there is more cpu power. > >www.top500.org how bad written software makes clusters seem fast. > >no clue what i could do with 10000 processors 375mhz power3, >though it would be fun to toy with. Most probably in the near future, the bottleneck of the hottest problems in science will be limited by handling huge amounts of information. As an example, you have the human genome map. Cool, now, what do you do with it? Genomics is going too fast now. That is why bioinformatics could possible be extremely important. >only costs american taxpayer a billion or so (more i guess), >in europe we waste it on art... ...its a choice Money spent in science is well spent because you are guaranteed to getting something back, and most of the time more valuable than the original cost. It does not cost to the US taxpayer that much when you think about it. However, if you wanted to be effective, you have spend and be patient. On the other hand, I seriously doubt your idea that europeans do not spend money on science. They do and a lot. Different style, though. Miguel
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.