Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:22:52 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2002 at 12:05:39, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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 checkout the top500.org site and see where all the supercomputers are build. Relatively LITTLE are in europe when talking about the fastest machines.
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.