Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:04:17 02/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2004 at 02:45:56, Keith Evans wrote: >On February 21, 2004 at 01:19:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 20, 2004 at 21:15:10, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>>On February 19, 2004 at 13:18:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On February 18, 2004 at 16:43:23, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 18, 2004 at 16:00:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 18, 2004 at 15:43:17, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 18, 2004 at 15:34:32, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hydra gets suckerd by some nice anti-computer play! A very ugly game by Hydra. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Doubt Hyatt would want to work with the Hydra programmer. I believe it was >>>>>>>Donninger (lead programmer?) who said, "The only good American is a dead one" or >>>>>>>something to that effect. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Correct. But then, I'm not sure why the subject "Hydra needs hyatt on team" >>>>>>came up either. I'd suspect they can do just fine without me. I'm not really >>>>>>interested in looking at hardware solutions when we have such good >>>>>>general-purpose "solutions" like the opteron around. :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I was just thinking about the comparison of two of those Hydra cards with a Dual >>>>>Opteron 248 or 4 Cards versus Quad Opteron. I believe that Crafty using the same >>>>>Quad Opteron that you previously use, is much faster than Hydra with 4 FPGA >>>>>cards :-) >>>>> >>>>>Jorge >>>> >>>> >>>>It is hard to say. I know how fast I was running. But their parallel >>>>implementation has some issues to deal with that I get to ignore, and some of >>>>those issues are pretty important, such as accessing the hash table, >>>>communicating with other processors, etc. Fast on a SMP box, not so fast on a >>>>box that depends on the PCI bus to talk to the FPGA cards... >>> >>>Is there no alternative to a PCI bus? If not, maybe we need to invent >>>something. >>> >>>Bob D. >> >> >>Not on a PC. That is the only interface there is for the moment. Other >>machines have something better, but they cost a _lot_ more... > >A couple of people have tried DIMMs, but it's problematic. > >Intel bought a company Nuron that was doing it to accelerate public key crypto, >and there's a Hong Kong university that's tried - see Pilchard. Don't know >anything about it, but see >http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/tik/education/lectures/RC/WS03_04/Plessl_TKDM.pdf too. > >One huge problem is many motherboards have very few slots, and even worse people >tend to scramble the data lines to make routing easier. And the DIMM boards have >to be relatively small, and not too power hungry. > >-K There is a special line of processors which can do public key encryption very very fast. Those processors are cheap too. Additionally they perform as a normal processor.
This page took 0.42 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.