Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 21:50:06 02/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2000 at 23:21:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 10, 2000 at 22:03:24, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On February 10, 2000 at 17:50:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>There are pros and cons for all implementations. The pros for bitmaps don't >>>become apparent until they are run on a 'native' architecture (64 bit machines). >>>When all is said and done, it is likely that both approaches are going to end >>>up pretty much equal, except for the 'data width' problem. IE an 0x88 program >> >>But you can look at the "data width" problem from the other direction: bitmaps >>don't run efficiently on non-64-bit processors. >> >>I like having a program that runs reasonably well on a small processor with >>small memory... >> >>-Tom > > >Two important points: (1) 64 bits are the future, not 32 bits, So in 5 years, >32 bits will probably be like 286's today. > >(2) super-scalar architectures have a problem keeping both pipes full. Bitmap >programs aren't as inefficient as first suspected, as they offer thousands of >places where two 32 bit and/or/xor/etc operations are needed to complete a 64 >bit operation. Super-scalar eats that alive and makes the penalty much less >than expected. IE I'll bet a bitmap program actually executes 2 instructions >per clock way more than a non-bitmap program, which means part of the 'loss' >is covered by clever hardware... I was thinking more about the 68000 in the PalmPilot and the various RISC processors in Windows CE computers... -Tom
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.