Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:44:43 03/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2000 at 19:22:12, Pete Galati wrote: >On March 02, 2000 at 18:30:21, Robert Hyatt 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. >>> >>>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 >> >> >>No. 500-700 bucks for a do-it-yourself _dual_. Quads are still pricey. >>Typical motherboard is over 2000 bucks and the only cpu choice is the xeons >>which are going for about $1,000 bucks apiece. About 6K to get a working >>quad xeon up assuming you have a case, big power supply, and disks already. > >I wasn't paying enough attention, if I had more backround I would have noticed >what you were talking about. I assume that a dual would do smp with NT or >Linux, but a quad would have all 4 cpus as smp. > >Pete I had trouble parsing your last sentence. The "but" is confusing. Either the dual or the quad would work with NT or Linux. Both machines are SMP.
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.