Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:58:57 01/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2003 at 11:53:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Cray blitz was like 500k nps at 16 processors. 16 * 100Mhz Cray VECTOR processor (capable of 29 integer instructions a clock or so versus x86 about 3). = 1.6Ghz You get more nps than that with crafty at a 1.6Ghz K7. You're doing around 1 MLN a second with crafty at a 1.6ghz K7 at the great vector processor which a Cray is you did 500k NPS. Best regards, 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.