Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:17:30 03/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2000 at 20:48:05, Pete Galati wrote: >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 I have 9 quad xeons at my office, plus the quad p6. :) Bruce has one. Amir uses one. I just taught an undergraduate class in parallel programming, and out of 15 students, three had dual-processor machines. You can put together a good dual for 500-700 bucks.
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.