Author: Charles Worthington
Date: 07:55:16 04/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2003 at 08:09:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. I am no cpu expert Vincent, but I was under the impression that a single thread switched back and forth between processes at a speed which only makes it_appear_to be performing simultaneous tasks. A thread can only run_one_program at a time based on what I have read. Respectfully, Charles
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.