Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:16:36 02/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2003 at 23:46:41, Matt Taylor wrote: >On February 28, 2003 at 19:30:21, Torstein Hall wrote: > >>On February 27, 2003 at 16:43:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 27, 2003 at 15:57:04, Brian Richardson wrote: >>> >>>>As I recall, 5 years ago folks were saying only another 10-12 years for Moore's >>>>Law speedups...now they are still saying another 10 years or so. I agree that >>>>at some point physics will dictate limitations, but then there is more >>>>parallelism. Sun just outlined plans for running 4 threads on each of 4 cores >>>>on a single chip in the 3-5 year time frame. That would be roughly 16x. Both >>>>Intel and IBM have similar plans to extend on-chip parallelism. >>>>Bottom Line: Just as coding for 64 bits will become the norm soon, so will >>>>coding for parallel searching with multiple threads. >>>> >>>>Brian >>> >>> >>>If you look back over the past 5 years, I've said that a hundred times. >>>"Moore's law" >>>is definitely fading fast. >> >>That statement do not sum correctly if I remember right. Is it not 5, 6 or 7 >>years ago a 200MHZ Pentium Pro was really hot? At the moment Intel is fast >>moving beyond 3Ghz. Thats a hefty 15 times clock speedup in the period, not >>counting paralelism etc. etc. >> >>So if this is right Moores law is breaking, the speedup seen from a consumers >>point of view is much higher! >> >>Torstein > >That's comparing apples to oranges. A 3 GHz Pentium 4 will be sorely outclassed >by a 3 GHz Pentium Pro. As best I can estimate, a 3 GHz Pentium 4 is >approximately equal in speed to a 2 GHz Pentium Pro. > >Moore's Law states that in 18 months, the number of transisters will double. >This is commonly interpreted as, "In 18 months the speed will double." I've also >heard it interpreted as, "In 18 months either the speed will double or the cost >will be cut in half." In either case, Intel doesn't think Moore's Law has run >out yet: >http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm >http://www.intel.com/labs/features/eml02031.htm > >-Matt While they might not totally agree about Moore's law, their "chart" really stretches reality. For example, compare the die size for some of the chips they quote. :) transistors per die is not as interesting as transistors per mm^2, or something similar. :)
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.