Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:53:46 01/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2003 at 02:01:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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 Mckinly ain't a vector machine. Not even close. So, once again, I have no idea what you are talking about. (Is this becoming a _common_ comment by me and others?) BTW, I didn't say I vectorized Crafty. I _did_ say I vectorized Cray Blitz and it ran like blazes on a vector machine. Itanium is not a vector machine. No X86 lookalike is a vector machine either. If you don't know what a vector machine is, find a good book. Or I can give some sample code for the Cray (assembly) to show what it is about.
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.