Author: Pete Galati
Date: 16:28:22 03/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2000 at 17:52:20, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >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 $100k system. Probably not. The last company I worked for didn't even get it's PCs local, they had to be shipped in from the corporate main office in Barberton Ohio, they were nothing special. > >>500-700$ 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". I missread. Pete > >>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.