Author: Charles Worthington
Date: 08:08:39 04/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2003 at 10:55:16, Charles Worthington wrote: >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 Also we can address the other remark now too. :-) Just because we rely on transistors now at our current level of technology does not mean that 20 years from now they_must_still be around. Our current technology, however proud of it we may be, is still in it's infancy. Until we fully understand the physics of what makes this universe function I think it is rather presumptious to assume that we are the masters of it. Not so long ago all believed that the world was flat. But if you believe that there is no ceiling to the current technology then you must also believe in sub-atomic transistors as well and in some as-yet-undiscovered element with unlimited conductivity. _Everything_in this universe has boundaries. How can you believe otherwise?
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.