Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 14:52:20 03/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2000 at 17:34:01, Pete Galati wrote: >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. Sometimes I see advertisments of locally-assembled quads in local press, but actually I doubt that there are many such deals. If you need quad, usually you need high reliability, and people used to think that only "big names" offer it. I doubt any company would buy locally assembled $100k system. >500-700$ 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. Message above says "good dual for 500-700 bucks", not "quad". >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.