Author: Charles Worthington
Date: 09:48:18 04/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2003 at 11:29:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 13, 2003 at 11:08:39, Charles Worthington wrote: > >>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 sounds more like the average 'high quality' AI paper. > >The big advantage of transistors is that they are made out of solid material. So >not from a fluid or a quantum that exists for 0.0000000001 seconds (or something >small). Considering you can see a connection between the earth being proven not >flat and computers out of silicon i am amazed you didn't mention quantum >computers yet :) > >Anyway it was around 1492 that Columbus discovered America. That's roughly 500 >years ago. If it takes another 500 years to discover non-silicon solutions to >transistors then it doesn't make sense to discuss it here and now :) Columbus, I only used as an example of forward thinking....Technology increases exponentially. And, yes, there is little point in speculating what the future holds. I wasn't intending to other than to point out that our_current_technology does have it's limits which are defined by clearly established laws of physics. Also, not to change the subject, but I was curious about your Diep Engine. Is it a commercially available engine? Where can I download it and will it run as a UCI engine under the Chessbase interface? 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.