Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:54:48 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 09:31:03, leonid wrote: >On January 25, 2000 at 23:50:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 25, 2000 at 21:21:53, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On January 25, 2000 at 20:56:21, Peter W. Gillgasch wrote: >>> >>>>On January 25, 2000 at 08:46:27, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>Does anyone know what position(s) HSU used >>>>>to get the 100M NPS (DB) or 200M NPS for >>>>>DBII? >>>> >>>>Why do you think that the position matters >>>>at all ? As long as he can keep the chips >>>>busy the total number of cycles should be >>>>constant. Since he was doing the last 4 plies >>>>in hardware - and that means that he basically >>>>did all the positions in hardware - I suspect >>>>that the overhead onthe SP which certainly >>>>depends on the position can be neglected... >>>>Obvious, isnīt it ? >>>> >>>>-- Peter >>>> >>>>>Was it one position or many position's? Was it >>>>>middle game, endgame, or combination? >>>>> >>>>>I would like to have the EPD for the >>>>>position, it would be interesting to >>>>>benchmark against. :) >>>>> >>>>>Thanks. >>>>> >>>>>Best Regards, >>>>>Chris Carson >>> >>>OK, but that is not why I wanted the position. HSU >>>quoted the numbers and I would like to know what positions >>>were used. >>> >>>Best Regards, >>>Chris Carson >> >> >>I don't think _anyone_ uses positions when they quote nodes per second. IE >>when I quote 800K for crafty on my quad xeon, that comes from watching a bunch >>of games and noting the NPS as the games are played. It runs from as low as >>550K to about 1M on my xeon. But once castled, it averages about 800K for the >>rest of the game... > > >And what are the main characteristics for "Quad Xeon" ? Quad probably stay for >four processors, but how about the speed of each chip in Mhz? > >Leonid. 400mhz cpus. figuring about 75% efficiency on 4 cpus, that is roughly like a 1200mhz xeon. In some cases it is like a 1600mhz machine, in others it is less than 800 although that is reasonably rare. > > > > >>NPS is a 'vague' number since I have positions where I can hit 450K or 1.3M >>depending on which one I use. Most of use use actual game numbers as a result, >>although it doesn't mean a thing. >> >>In Hsu's case, he can't _really_ give an exact nps, because the hardware >>processors don't count nodes. It would take them as long to count one as it >>does to search one. He seems to have an idea that they drove the chess >>processors at 50-70% utilization. Which would translate into roughly 500-700M >>nodes per second, raw numbers. He also claimed 30% search efficiency, which >>most likely turns into the 200M number. IE for Crafty, the raw NPS is 800K. >>But due to extra work done, this is probably equivalent to 600K overall. >> >>I am not certain how he arrived at 200M, but that is a reasonable guess. Based >>on 480 chess processors at 2M to 2.4M nodes per second. taking the lower number >>(some were clocked at 20mhz, others at 24mhz) we get almost 1B nodes per second >>max, but he couldn't keep them all busy. .70 * 1B = 700M. .30 * 700M = 210M, >>which was the claimed speed...
This page took 0.05 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.