Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:17:21 11/03/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2005 at 12:00:29, Hristo wrote: >On November 03, 2005 at 11:32:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 02, 2005 at 22:48:53, Hristo wrote: >> >>>On November 02, 2005 at 18:02:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 02, 2005 at 16:23:36, James T. Walker wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 02, 2005 at 16:19:03, John Dillard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 02, 2005 at 15:34:30, Joshua Shriver wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.apple.com/powermac/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>nice :) would make a good quad system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-Josh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>They're making a quad system. There's not other system on the market today, >>>>>>super computer or otherwise, that can process as many gigaflops of info as the >>>>>>dual core G5. I just wonder if any of the chess programs will benefit from this >>>>>>power? >>>>> >>>>>I know really nothing about computers super or otherwise but I suspect that 76 >>>>>Gigaflops on the quad core is not faster than the fastest supercomputer of >>>>>today. >>>>>Jim >>>> >>>>I'm not even convinced that 76 gigaflops is doable on any microcomputer today... >>>> >>>>Seems like a _BBBIIIIIGGGGGGG_ stretch... >>>> >>>>basically one floating point operation every 13 picoseconds or so... >>> >>>Bob, >>>it actually works-out to be about "right" at that speed. The clincher here is >>>the algorithm and the domain, i.e. required output. At work we (software) had a >>>contest with the hardware dudes, who were using FPGAs (and what-have-you) ... >>>and outcome was that in some of the cases (less than %20) the G5 won against the >>>best FPGAs you can buy. >>> >>>Best Regards, >>>Hristo >>> >>>p.s. >>>The Apple claim is easily verifiable because you can download their example >>>applications and test it for yourself; FIR, FFT work very well under Altivec. >>>The problem, obviously. is that this speed doesn't apply to every problem >>>(situation). >> >>I had not looked, but suspected that the altivec stuff was the key. It is >>always possible to find some algorithm, and specific data set, where a >>particular hardware instruction set really works well. > >Indeed. This is exactly what Apple is selling, without actually telling people >that this type of performance cannot be achieved in %95+ of the algorithms. > >> My old "attack" code on >>the Cray boxes was the only actual working piece of code Cray knew of that >>executed from start to finish with zero wait states of any kind (waiting on >>memory reads, waiting on the output of a previous instruction, etc.) It only >>took a couple of years of twiddling to reach that point. For a piece of code >>that represented less than 10% of the total execution time after it was >>completed... :) > >Yep. >Today most people prefer to achieve practical results rather than maximum >theoretical performance of the given hardware; after all we live in the age of >Java. :-) > >Best Regards, >Hristo YOU might live in the age of Java. I still live in the age of C. :)
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.