Well said Nick. You asked a good question. It looks like the number of cores is now about to replace the intrinsic speed of the processors although they will still continue to get faster - but perhaps at a much slower rate.
It will be interesting to see what happens. For some reason it doesn't seem likely that cheap $300 computers will be available any time soon that has more than just a few cores - UNLESS software changes to keep pace. Unless you are doing development and testing - I don't believe the average consumer is going to keep 128 cores busy and the market will no doubt respond to that. Of course I know that gaming machines are popular and the gaming enthusiast thirst for power. So perhaps this will continue to drive the market. - Don terry mcintyre wrote: > From: Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>, Petr Baudis > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes > > >> are there any limits (set by either rules or ethiquette) on power of > >>the machines running the bots? Or noone cares? I wonder if it's ok to > >>use a 16-core opteron-packed machine to run the bot or something of the > >>scale of a reasonable modern desktop would be more appropriate. > > >The rules say, there are no limits. Etiquette says that, if you do use > >a 16-core opteron-packed machine or whatever, you should tell me, so > >that I can mention it in my report on the event. > > >This used not to be a significant issue. Before the advent of UCT, > >doubling or even 32-folding the processor power did not produce a big > >increase in playing strength. Now it does, and so I should perhaps > >reconsider this. > > Deep Blue, which beat Kasparov, was a purpose-built supercomputer. I > think we should be delighted that computer Go programs now make use of > some heavy iron. If the first shodan-strength Go computer requires a > sheikh's ransom, average Joes will purchase the same capability a > decade later. In 2007, almost all computers are dual-core; quads are > quite affordable; the 8-way Mac Pro is "a reasonable modern desktop" > for some; a 16-way rackmount server is about $7-8k, not at all > excessive for a research project. The SC072 is available for $15k. > Following Moore's Law, these prices will plummet further. 16 cores may > be "a reasonable modern desktop" in 2008, certainly by 2009. > > I can understand some concern about a "level playing field", but there > are likely to be a lot of 8-way competitors this year, and 16-way the > next, and so forth - you'd have to keep raising the bar every year. > This sort of hardware is on hand for many go enthusiasts. Larger > clusters should be welcomed. If Sicortex were to enter a program > optimized for their SC5832, that would surely spur competitors to > eliminate wasted cycles and improve search efficiency! The power of > the SC5832 is about 8 doublings from the desktops of well-heeled > hobbyists - perhaps 12 years away. > > It would be interesting to test several conjectures. Do current > algorithms scale to many (hundreds or thousands of cores)? Do elo > ratings scale with the number of cores? The present course of computer > hardware evolution suggests that manycore computers are our future; > the answers to such questions will drive the programs of tomorrow. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See > how. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51732/*http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
