Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 00:11:21 09/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 1999 at 23:20:02, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>There are hundreds of millions of 16 and 32 bits PCs in the world today. How
>>many 64 bits PCs? NONE, ZERO, NIL, NADA.
>>
>
>
>this is wrong. Ask bruce as he owns a PC with a 533 mhz alpha in it, made
>by Polywell. There are several such machines. PC magazine has even covered
>them in detail.
OK, sorry. You are right, let's be accurate. From a mathematical point of view
the 64 bits PCs represent a percentage strictly greater than 0. Say 0.1%, OK?
>>It will take several years (maybe 10) before the number of 64 bits PCs becomes
>>larger than the number of 16 and 32 bits ones.
>>
>
>folks were saying that about the 386 not replacing the 286 for most businesses
>too. Care to guess how many 286's are left? :)
I'm not saying they will not replace older computers. I'm just saying it will
take time.
And that non bitboard program will also benefit from more powerful computers.
>>You live in a country where only a fraction of your monthly salary is enough to
>>buy a new powerful personal computer.
>>
>>Of course you know it's not the case everywhere in the world.
>>
>>So maybe you can easily erase 16 and 32 bits computers from your memory as soon
>>as Intel produces a 64 bits processor, but there are many people in the world
>>who will stick to 16 and 32 bits for 10 years or more.
>
>
>
>that is crazy. How many people do you know with 286 computers? they are
>10 years old. How many do you know with 486 computers? They are 5 years old.
>How many do you know with p5 pentium machines? they are 4 years old. How
>about pentium pros? 3 years. Pentium II? 1.5, pentium III? < 1 year.
A friend of mine stopped using his 286 2 years ago. Another one had upgraded
from 286 to 486 the year before.
Here the majority of computers are 486.
>People replace technology _all_ the time. I don't know of _anybody_ that
>doesn't have at least a pentium CPU. Which means _no_ machines I know of are
>over 3 years old. These are home computers. Office computers. Business
>computers. Game computers. Etc.
Looks like we are not living in the same world...
>Sticking to 16 bits won't be possible if the new software releases don't support
>it. Care to boot up windows 2000 on a 286? That's only a 10 year old processor
>so it ought to work right?
My 386sx20 (1990) notebook boots Windows 95.
I know next versions of Windows won't run anymore on it (I did not even try
W98).
Guess why?
The industry needs a strong reason to push people to buy new computers.
>>Funny you mention this. I was recently thinking that I could produce a 16 bits
>>version of Chess Tiger.
>>
>>In 1997 I rewrote everything to port from 16 to 32 bits. In fact, the rewrite
>>was essentially optmizing my algorithms for efficiency. I have used my older 16
>>bits version as a laboratory. I was very flexible, so I could try many different
>>things, but because of this was not optimized.
>>
>>So I rewrote everything with the algorithm I was targetting for in mind.
>>Additionnaly, I thought I would take advantage of 32 bits processing where it
>>would make sense.
>>
>>Recently I realized that I needed 32 bits integer very unfrequently. In fact I
>>could use 16 bits integer in 99% of my program. The 32 bits integer processing
>>is needed only for hash keys calculations and hash table access, and a 16 bits
>>processor can emulate them with only a very small speed penalty.
>>
>
>
>From a performance perspective, you are thinking wrongly. You don't want
>to think "How can I reduce my data sizes so that 16 bits works?" You do
>want to ask "How can I increase my data sizes to 64 bits so that I can use
>the increased data density in a 64 bit cpu?"
I understand, and I suppose bitboards fit very well this goal. It's just that I
don't think this power is needed. What we need is mainly more speed, and better
parallelism. I guess you are going to say that processing the 64 squares in one
operation is a kind of parallelism... :)
>As a challenge, I'll get you time on a Cray. Let's see how well you run on
>that machine compared to a program that is optimized for it. My eyes were
>opened years ago to this problem...
I take the offer. How can I compile my program for the Cray?
Christophe
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.