Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:09:03 04/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2003 at 23:04:17, Charles Worthington wrote: >On April 11, 2003 at 21:39:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 11, 2003 at 18:07:30, Charles Worthington wrote: >> >>>On April 11, 2003 at 06:37:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 11, 2003 at 00:31:52, Charles Worthington wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 11, 2003 at 00:09:23, Jay Urbanski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's simply wrong, or you have deliberately chosen to ignore all consumer >>>>>>>electronic devices and most PCs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't even know if the vast majority of processor produced in the world are 16 >>>>>>>bits or 32 bits ones. Maybe the majority is 8 bits processors. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Perhaps if you include all embedded processors in the world.. but even that's >>>>>>doubtful. But on the other hand I doubt your car or your refrigerator are going >>>>>>to be running a chess engine. >>>>>> >>>>>>SMP / SMT processing is definitely on the rise and you *will* see it become much >>>>>>more common on both the desktop and general purpose server machines. IBM's >>>>>>POWER4 is already SMP on a chip, Itanium will be soon, as will Opteron in a few >>>>>>years. Intel will follow suit on the desktop as they have with Hyperthreading >>>>>>already. It's a cheap way to get more processing power out of the available >>>>>>silicon - so why not? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Not to mention the fact that they will soon reach a ceiling on how much speed >>>>>they can get out of a single cpu and once that happens multiprocessing will no >>>>>longer be a luxury...it will be a necessity. >>>> >>>>I disagree here. So far there is no indication they will reach a ceiling. >>>> >>>>SMT/HT is a big sales argument and it is possible to make it now because we are >>>>nowadays at 0.13 micron. In 0.18 or .35 micron this would have been harder to do >>>>against the same price. >>> >>> >>> >>>Actually there is no choice but for them to reach a ceiling eventually...They >> >>that is a very cheap statement to do actually. >> >>So far they managed to get faster each 2 years about 2 times. Overall seen even >>more than that. >> >>So many things can get improved IPC can get improved. caches. Prediction >>algorithms. All very hard to improve but they will improve all bit by bit. >> >>when hardware gets very tiny then i love to see 32 cpu's at a single >>processor-die :) >> >>>are limited by the size of the atom and other factors such as conductivity which >>>are controlled by the laws of physics. No matter how smart the engineers are the >>>current technology does in fact have limits....They are the_laws_of >>>physics...not the_theory_of physics. >>> >>>respectfully, Charles > > >Yes i agree that there is still significant room for improvement. However, it is >still a question of which will come first....The technology to improve single >cpu's or the need to move on to multiprocessing in order to get the performance >increases that the public have become accustomed to. If multiprocessing winds up >being the solution then the cost of dual cpu systems will drop dramatically as >they become commonplace. Right now it is looking like a toss up as to which will >come first. Personally I am hoping to see the improvements in the single cpu's >because then that will make them all the more deadly in the multiprocessor >systems. Eventually, however, there is still a ceiling that will have to one day >be dealt with by multiprocessing or a completely new technology which does not >rely on the transistor. Let's skip that last remark for now. It is trivial that a cpu in itself is already a parallel thing. Already for many years instructions get executed simultaneously.
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.