Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 14:45:50 02/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2003 at 12:05:08, Sune Fischer wrote: >On February 22, 2003 at 11:38:04, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 22, 2003 at 11:05:42, Charles Worthington wrote: >> >>>On February 22, 2003 at 07:08:53, Robert Pawlak wrote: >>> >>>>Charles, >>>> >>>>I am envious, please let us know how you enjoy your new system... >>>> >>>>Bob >>> >>>It's nothing to envy, Bob. It was a necessity for my business. I have never >>>spent quite_that_much on a machine for my office before. A single 3.06 would >>>have done fine for me also but considering that I use it for chess I opted for >>>the dual. Rich, I am not, and it certainly stings a little to pay that price for >>>a motherboard that I will have to abandon when Intel changes the design on their >>>cpus. :-) >> >>I think that for most people there is no special reason to have a dual for >>chess. >> >>I do not see why is it so important to have the fastest hardware and for a lot >>of programs Dual is not faster than single. > >Maybe not faster, but things run more smoothly on a dual. Having a spare >processor to handle the background processes when one chip is at full load is >something you can definitely feel as a user. > >And maybe duals would be more popular if more software supported it, goes hand >in hand I think. > >If only C/C++ had some support for it natively, so you could split at a lower >level rather than spawning large threads all the time. Fortran is great here, >simple vector operations can be done in parallel. <snip> In the operating system it is done with threads or processes. Any abstraction from that still returns back to it. Anything that can be done with abstraction can always be done with lower-level constructs because abstraction is built upon lower-level constructs. -Matt
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.