Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 17:22:41 06/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2002 at 19:02:45, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >So a common misconception seems to be that 64-bit chips would be twice as fast >as 32-bit chips. I doubt that any computer-oriented people would think that way. My wife wouldn't either but that's because she neither knows nor cares what a "bit" is. [And, why should she?] I hope my bulletin didn't seem to suggest that I thought that way. Although I have never been a professional software specialist, I have done quite a bit of programming and digital design, as an engineer, and really do understand about registers, word lengths, and the like. But, to play "Devil's Advocate," I should say that it really depends on what you use those "64 bit chips" for. If you are doing simple addition, that's one thing. On the other hand, a few of the many innovative and creative chess engine inventors/developers here at CCC might have found OTHER ways to take advantage of the 64-bit feature. It might, even, be useful! >This is almost exactly like saying you can add small numbers >together twice as fast on an 11-digit calculator than on a 10-digit calculator. >(Computers spend most of their time working with < 32 bit numbers.) It doesn't >make any difference. The main advantage of 64-bit chips is that you can easily >address more memory and bigger files with them, and I've never heard of a 32-bit >chess program that was starved for memory. > >It makes sense that a bitboard chess program would benefit from the 64-bitiness >of a processor but I've never seen any evidence to support this. According to >SPEC, the Itanium doesn't run Crafty any faster than 32-bit programs, when >compared to a Pentium. (In fact, it runs Crafty a little slower.) Hyatt likes to >say that 64-bit chips are great for computer chess because the Alpha runs Crafty >really fast, but looking at SPEC, the Alpha runs everything fast. It only runs >Crafty a few percent faster than 32-bit programs. > >A chip's design is MUCH more important than how wide its ALU is. I guess you are referring to that dubious/nebulous "software bandwidth" concept here? >Otherwise, a >386 would be more or less as fast as a Pentium 4 because they're both 32-bit >chips. Just because a chip is 64-bit doesn't mean it's fast. The Itanium is a >dog. So is the UltraSparc III. > >In other words, nobody should get fired up about 64-bit. Don't be hasty!!! You may not yet have thought of the real reasons why Bob Hyatt is crazy about 64-bit. He may, actually, have come up with some unexpected new ideas! >BTW, 64-bit chips are very common. The Nintendo 64 had a MIPS R4000, which is >64-bit. Every RISC workstation for the past few years has been 64-bit, including >HP-PA, UltraSparc, POWER3/4, Alpha. > >The Itanium 1 is a dog. Everybody says the Itanium 2 will be fast, but according >to what Intel itself has disclosed about performance, it's not going to be >faster than a fast Pentium. Plus, it'll be really expensive. Personally, I think >the Itanium's design is stupid and am waiting for it to disappear. What matters is nodes per second, not clock rate. That is very important! >The AMD Hammer (successor to the Athlon) will rock. It's 64-bit, it has a deeper >pipeline, a better branch predictor, more registers (!), an on-die memory >controller, and more. Prerelease 800MHz Hammers are almost as fast as 1.6GHz >Athlons at Quake 3, and production Hammers should clock faster than Athlons. I >think the Hammer will be the best chip for computer chess for a long time to >come. You are not alone. There are many AMD fans. That reminds me of Bob Hyatt's home state, Alabama. In Alabama, there are die-hard Auburn [War Eagle!] football fans and there are die-hard Alabama [Roll Tide!] football fans. Similarly, there are people who always buy Ford trucks and others who like Chevy trucks. And, believe it or not, there are a few Intel fans! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) > >-Tom Bob D.
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.