Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 06:35:04 12/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
Greg, you keep repeating that FPGAs have memory and that this solves the memory problem. This shows that you have not done one single little bit of logic design in your entire life. And if you did, you probably got an F in it. If an FPGA has a bank of RAM, it takes circuitry to read a value from that RAM. Then it takes more circuitry to write to that RAM. That's wasting space on your FPGA and it's adding cycles to the algorithm. And the RAM is not infinitely fast. There will be latency. So if you're going to use that RAM on the FPGA, you're forcing the FPGA to behave like a general purpose computer. And once you do that, well, there's just no point. I think it's sad that you're clinging to this silly fact to save your entire project here. -Tom On December 20, 1999 at 15:48:35, Greg Lindahl wrote: >On December 17, 1999 at 18:59:56, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>Yes, but Bob wrote exactly why memory is the necessity, and you did not explain >>how you plain to avoid using it. > >Bob explained why memory was a necessity if you wanted to exactly replicate Deep >Blue's chips. He did not consider either (1) FPGA cards with SRAMs, which are >common, or (2) whether it's best to put as much into the FPGA as Deep Blue does. > >That's why I was disappointed with his comments. > >> You can waive your hands in the air as long as >>you wish; but when it comes down to technical details, I'd recommend you to >>listen to others > >I am happy to listen to others. I have been listening to others. I just don't >think that a discussion about something that I don't think is a good idea anyway >(due to 2) and that is fairly moot (due to 1) is worthwhile.
This page took 0.01 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.