Author: Keith Evans
Date: 21:31:04 02/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2004 at 22:51:36, Slater Wold wrote: >On February 19, 2004 at 21:42:03, Keith Evans wrote: > >>On February 19, 2004 at 20:03:29, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>> >>>Microprocessors are lovable little creatures which are ADORED by all >>>programmers, both male and female, because they are so easy [ : ) ] to program. >>>[That, in fact, is part of the problem.] There is even a new breed of digital >>>engineers who have wrapped their entire careers around the little cuties. Many >>>programmers owe their very professional existence to microprocessors. >>> >>>It's all an evil deception intended to make programmers and engineers alike go >>>astray. >>> >>>When microprocessors first became widely available, about thirty years ago, they >>>hit the technical world like an atom bomb. People jumped on the microprocessor >>>bandwagon like they were the best thing since sex and now some even worship >>>microprocessors! The new programmers, scientists, and engineers just coming out >>>of college think that microprocessors [and EPROMS] have been around forever, >>>since before creation, and that it is a SIN to design anything which does not >>>contain at least one microprocessor. >>> >>>It is the speed and sequential nature of microprocessors which is both their >>>strength and their weakness, depending on the application. >>> >>>A chess programmer sees a microprocessor as being a gift from Heaven, along with >>>the alpha/beta algorithm. [Shannon is seen as being a Saint.] >>> >>>If a chess engine were functionally decomposed into simple functional elements >>>and if it were decided to provide hardware to perform those simple functions, >>>then you can be sure that the modern designer would, without hesitation, reach >>>for a microprocessor. Why? Because "That's the way things are done." Each >>>functional element would have it's own dedicated microprocessor. >>> >>>Suppose the overall function of a chess engine were accomplished, mainly, by >>>performing the various functions sequentially, one after the other. Suppose >>>also that each function is performed by hardware elements each containing a >>>microprocessor. What would happen? Since the functions would be performed one >>>after the other [i.e. sequentially] and since each individual simple function >>>would be performed by the sequential process within the microprocessor for that >>>simple functional element, then the net result would be no faster or better than >>>doing the entire chess engine function on a single microprocessor. To make this >>>completely evident, note that I am postulating that only one microprocessor is >>>working at any given time and that after one finishes the next starts. >>> >>>It should be evident that trying to create a hardware version of a chess engine >>>should involve few if any microprocessors. Only those tasks which cannot >>>possibly be performed non-sequentially should have a microprocessor. If more >>>than one microprocessor must be used, then a way should be found for them to run >>>in parallel. Better would be no microprocessors at all. >>> >>>The problem is that hardware designers skilled in digital design without the use >>>of microprocessors is a breed of cat which may have long since become extinct. >>> >>>Satan laughs!!! >>> >>>Bob D. >> >>If you replaced all of the Xilinx FPGAs in Hydra with Opterons do you think that >>it would get weaker or stronger? I vote for stronger. > >And which costs more? > >Xilinx, interestingly. It depends on which Xilinx part ;-) I think that the XC2V1000 parts are around $200 now, but you can still fork out say $7000 for an XC2V8000 part. I don't know how Chrilly gets his thing into an XCV1000E part - I am curious about exactly what he has in there. The XCV1000E has 1,000,000 marketing gates - if I remember correctly you typically have to divide that by a factor of 3 to 8 or more to convert to realistic units. Xilinx gurus can typically reduce that factor, but they have to be really intimate with the Xilinx architecture and do a lot of hand tweaking. (In my book http://www.andraka.com/ qualifies as a guy with "guru level" Xilinx knowledge.) -K
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.