Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 23:01:15 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2002 at 10:58:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 31, 2002 at 08:47:37, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>On December 30, 2002 at 19:25:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On December 30, 2002 at 13:34:31, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>On December 30, 2002 at 11:33:18, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 30, 2002 at 05:26:32, Graham Laight wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>See http://www.talkchess.com/forums/2/message.html?54285 in the other forum. >>>>>> >>>>>>-g >>>>> >>>>>it is vector CPU's. Not comparable with cpu's that do things like computerchess >>>>>at all. So for computerchess that machine isn't that fast at all. >>>> >>>>Wasn't the Cray a vector machine? Running Cray Blitz by Hyatt et al. >>> >>>Yes. 16 processors in total got him to about 500k nodes a second. >>> >>>I do not know what Mhz Cray Blitz ran on. But probably Hyatt can enlighten >>>us about it. >>> >>>However for matrix calculations and such that Cray was >>>considerably faster than it was for Cray Blitz. >>> >>>Then you'll see the Cray didn't do that impressive for each >>>Mhz whereas it was a lot more impressive for vector processing. >>> >>>Compare both Mhz of todays x86 with the Cray times 16 back then >>>and the vector power versus todays x86 and you'll know what we are >>>speaking about. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Vincent >> >> >>No I cannot. I can see that it might be slower MHz for MHz, but given its >>awesome speed (35 trillion calculations per second) I would have thought it >>would be a very strong chess machine, particularly if the program was written >>with vector processing in mind. >> >>Frank > > >Of course it would. But you have to: > >(1) be willing to expend the effort; > >(2) understand vector processing or else put forth the effort to figure out >how it might apply to chess; > >(3) not write everything off as "impossible" just because you don't know how >to do it _now_. > >(4) be willing to spend a lot of time "getting into vector processing mode" >and learn how to use it effectively. It is just like "getting into bitmaps". >_some_ are simply incapable of doing so... You didn't do all that for Crafty. Otherwise even the current 1Ghz McKinley would be 50% faster than Alpha and you just posted it isn't. How comes? Happy programming in 2003, Vincent
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.