Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 19:27:02 07/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2005 at 21:38:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >... > >My point was that Hydra is most _certainly_ not some new level of computer chess >as stated by Adams. I wouldn't argue against it being the best computer chess >entity at the moment. But it is absolutely _not_ head and shoulders above >others. The advantage I have is that I have a lot of experience with parallel >and distributed search, and know the losses that a distributed search entails >compared to a pure SMP approach. And even if they are currently reaching 200M >nodes per second, which I somehow doubt given the FPGA numbers they have >published in the past, that is not _that_ much faster than other readily >available hardware. I've seen numbers well beyond 20M for Crafty on a quad >dual-core opteron, for example. I've seen numbers more than double that on >other machines I can't really mention at the moment. So they are not _that_ far >beyond today's programs. Clearly Adam's comments are based on some other >reality or understanding that is not based on factual analysis. Today you can buy Itanium2 64-CPU system at http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/integrity/superdome_high_end/ Last time I measured Crafty run at ~1.5Mnps on one Itanium2 CPU. So with some additional work (avoid cache conflicts, maybe introduce smaller local hash to be probed at the last ply or two) Crafty can hit ~100Mnps on such beast. For less than $40k you can buy reasonable configured 8 sockets / 16 cores Opteron system. For example take a look at http://www.pcsforeveryone.com/product_info.php?cPath=1967&products_id=14101&customize=true Crafty should run at ~30-35Mnps on such system. Both those systems are NUMA, not clusters, so search should be more efficient. Thanks, Eugene
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.