Author: Pete Galati
Date: 17:48:05 03/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2000 at 20:22:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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'. I'd like to see that day. Any idea how many quad machines are in use by members here at CCC? Pete
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.