Author: Pete Galati
Date: 14:34:01 03/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2000 at 22:36:18, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On March 01, 2000 at 22:17:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >Near my office there is a large hall filled with 4- and 8-way SMP systems, and I >regularly use one of them (usually to debug a program). > >Eugene Thanks, I'll have to ask my friend if her company is putting any quads together for the local companies, I'm guessing they don't, I wonder if they're missing a market. 500-700$ for a do it yourself quad? I'd probably have to get help with the assembly, I should take a look at what parts are needed. Interesting post by Tom Kerrigan about IBM's CPU plans, hope it's more than just IBM talking. Pete
This page took 0 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.