Author: Pete Galati
Date: 21:16:55 03/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2000 at 21:44:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Sorry, I meant "and" but wrote "but" I guess, meaning that they differ in that one has 2 and one has 4 cpus. Your explanation that "Both machines are SMP" is the important matter. Thanks. 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.