Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:22:16 10/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2002 at 10:25:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 27, 2002 at 19:24:00, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On October 27, 2002 at 16:03:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On October 27, 2002 at 10:42:05, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>are you looking for $0.01 processors which do near nothing, or >>>are you looking for good processors that can compete at that time >>>with processors of that time? >>> >>>>How Small Can a Microprocessor Get? >>>> >>>>Maybe the question should be: "How many microprocessors per square inch on a >>>>wafer will be doable in the future? >>>> >>>>Part of the my problem is that I do not know how many electronic components >>>>[resistive, transistor, etc.] are required to make a microprocessor. How many? >>>> >>>> >>>>Bob D. >> >>Vincent: >> >>My interest was for chess engine applications. >> >>Intuitively, is seems that one million "$0.01 processors which do near nothing" >>might actually do more, collectively, than one modern microprocessor. > >I will not directly disagree, but there are some issues when you >press for example 100 processors from 100Mhz instead of a 1.2Ghz McKinley >(which uses pretty much transistors, even 3MB L3 cache on chip). > >In theory the 100 x100Mhz is faster, and when pressed for the same >price i can imagine you prefer those 100 chips. However then you need >a couple of millions of dollars to build an actual system from it to >quickly connect the cpu's. > >the next example shows the actual problem: > 1 processor K7 system - $1,000 > 2 processor K7 system - $2,000 > 8 processor Xeon - $100,000 > 16 processor Alpha - $10,000,000 >512 processor SGI origin 3800 - ==> a lot more than $10MLN > >So you go to a system like this, but then with say 100 cheap $0.01 >processors and then to pay a billion to make a machine with 10000 >processors is pretty stupid IMHO. > >>Since I see advancement in two fronts, complexity and speed, I would expect to >>see blindingly fast "$0.01 processors which do near nothing" when compared to >>today's computers [depending on how far out into the future]. >> >>Similarly, I would expect to see many "tiny" microprocessors which do as much as >>a current-day Intel Pentium. > >In theory it is possible, but i must note that i have put years of work >in DIEP in order to run parallel and another few months now to get it to >work on this machine very well: > http://www.sara.nl/Customer/systems/sgi3800/overview.html > >Of course a supercomputer offers so much more than probably your idea >is now. But in order to let a chessprogram work well you need at least >2 things which are expensive to make: > a) each processor needs its own RAM. Even if it is 128 MB, it is > still not easy to do this in combination with the next thing > b) you need an OS that can handle so many processors, don't say linux > can do it. That's not the 100% truth. > c) each processor needs to communicate to other processors. > this is the expensive part of course of the machine. > >>I don't know where the tradeoff will be for future chess-playing machines. But >>perhaps millions of relatively simple processors would be the choice of chess >>engine programmers of the future? > >you want a machine with millions of processors? How much is that going >to cost? Trillions? > >A crucial thing for chess is a fast communication speed between nodes. As >you can see the Teras machine delivers up to a TERA byte a second. > >That is not so easy to deliver. That costs $$$$$$$$$. >Yes with that many digits... :) > >>With your "future hat" on, and your magic crystal ball, what do you see? >>Bob D. > >I am not hardware expert but i see very clearly that software runs behind >more than the hardware does. If you see how well those SGI system are, >then i am really amazed. > >However it requires of course special programming to get something >parallel to work in such a way that you do not poll continuesly and >preferably do not write in too many cache lines which are hosted/allocated >at other nodes. > >What i see too is that the power that most cpu's require now, that it >might give a big problem in the future. I do not know how i can cool >my dual k7 without it producing a lot of sound. > >I was looking for watercooling now, but the big fans that are used there >are spinning at 90KM/hour, or in short, producing a kind of 'car' sound :) > >Best regards, >Vincent As for the money: I guess we have to look too far into the future to see the costs coming down to reasonable levels. Perhaps there will be technology breakthroughs as well which might have a favorable impact on pricing. Generally, I hope that new ways will be found to economically put more devices in a small space. Maybe non-chess needs will drive the search for this new technology. I guess that, as a practical matter, technology becomes "real" only when people can afford it. 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.