Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:22:09 03/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2000 at 14:43:39, Pete Galati wrote: >On March 01, 2000 at 07:37:55, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On February 29, 2000 at 17:32:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 29, 2000 at 11:40:46, Ed Panek wrote: >>> >>>>On February 29, 2000 at 08:42:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 29, 2000 at 01:13:38, Georg Langrath wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I tink that you can measure the speed of a analyze in nods per second. When will >>>>>>a pc be comabarable with Deep Blue with that increasing in hardware every year >>>>>>that is now? I think that it must be so some time in future. >>>>>> >>>>>>Georg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Not easy to answer, but I would guess that the speed of deep blue is about >>>>>1,000 times faster than the fastest program of today, based on the fastest >>>>>program going 1M nodes per second, while DB could peak at 1B nodes per >>>>>second. It averaged about 200M, but then it also had some complex eval stuff >>>>>that would slow that 1M nps program down by a factor of 5-10 probably >>>>> >>>>>If you assume 1000x, with a doubling of machine speed every year (which is >>>>>very optimistic) then it will take about 10 years to catch up. >>>>> >>>>>all of that analysis has lots of assumptions, however... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Unless there is some incredible watershed breakthrough in processor technology >>>> >>>>Ed >>> >>> >>>True. But I have been involved in computing since 1968, and there has been >>>no "incredible watershed breakthrough in processor technology" for the past 32 >>>years. Nothing suggests (to me) that one is forthcoming within the next 10+ >>>years. >> >>There are companies out there making multi-processor machines in a low cost way. >>What is required is not so much a technology breakthrough, but a marketing >>breakthrough. Multi-processor computers needs to become both a big market and a >>competitive market. >> >>Pentium processors are a big and competitive market. Trouble is, I don't think >>they're the best architechture to put together in large numbers on the same >>motherboard. >> >>Hey people - lets all find good reasons to need lots of processing power, stop >>buying Pentiums, standardise on a multiprocessor archtechture, and start buying >>it in large numbers! >> >>-g > >Ok, you got a few extra bucks on you that we can all borrow? Wouldn't I have a >Quad Xeon if I could afford one? My 586 is old and slow because I don't have >the money to replace it, truth is I'd be thrilled to have a 350mhz computer >right now. So there is that money factor. > >But yeah, they don't put together large numbers of multi-processor machines >because most people have no use for one, and that "most people" is what pays >their bills. Us computer Chess fans are just another flicked bugger to computer >manufacturers in general, but a good specialized market. > >Pete Actually the number of dual-cpu machines is quite enormous. I have seen some eye-popping numbers quoted by MB manufacturers... One day the quads will get 'there'.
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.