Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:25:31 01/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2003 at 11:58:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. On a C90 with 16 processors, correct. We ran on this machine in 1992, when it was first available to us. > >16 * 100Mhz Cray VECTOR processor (capable of 29 integer instructions >a clock or so versus x86 about 3). = 1.6Ghz The C90 was not a 100mhz processor. The clock cycle time was 4 nanoseconds, which is 250mhz if you want to use a wrong measure. And the "capable of 29 integer instructions a clock" is total nonsense as usual. Each CPU could execute _one_ integer instruction per clock. _never_ any more than that. In vector mode each cpu could do four reads and two writes per cycle along with as many vector operations as you could chain together, so that it _could_ do 32 (or more) adds/subtracts/multiples/etc per cpu, per clock cycle... Of course, if you would just look at the cray architecture, you would know this without resorting to wrong statements... However, the T90 was twice as fast, with twice as many processors, and it brought a few new things to the table including (for the first time) a real cache for scalar variables, something no prior Cray ever had. And as I reported here at least a year or so ago, I played Crafty on my Quad 700 vs the T90 and the T90 was hitting around 6-7M nodes per second, typically. 6-7M nodes per second in 1995 was _not_ bad (that was when the T90 came along, although we had no ACM events after 1994 so it never played in a computer chess tournament. > >You get more nps than that with crafty at a 1.6Ghz K7. So? Do you understand the concept of time? C90 = 1992. 1.6ghz K7 = 2002. ten years (or more) apart. Go back to 1992 and find _any_ computer that could search 500K nodes per second, excepting Deep Thought. Go back to 1995 and find any machine that could hit 6-7M except for Deep Blue. > >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 So? I did a lot of things in Cray Blitz that I can't afford to do in Crafty just yet. That 500K nodes per second was 1992 hardware. This is 2002. Why compare today's PC to a supercomputer 10 years old? Oh yes, you really have no idea what a supercomputer is, so time has little meaning _either_... Just a room full of monkeys typing on keyboards that occasionally put something together that sounds like it might be legitimate, when it is far off the real mark..
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.