🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35825@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> brooks@maddog.llnl.gov () writes:
>Fact number 1:
>The best of the microprocessors now EXCEED supercomputers for scalar
>performance and the performance of microprocessors is not yet stagnant.
>On scalar codes, commodity microprocessors ARE the fastest machines at
>any price and custom cpu architectures are doomed in this market.

I take my hat off to them, too, because that's no mean feat.  But don't
forget that the supercomputers didn't set out to be the fastest machines
on scalar code.  If they had, they'd all have data caches, non-interleaved
main memory, and no vector facilities.  What the supercomputer designers
are trying to do is balance their machines to optimally execute a certain 
set of programs, not the least of which are the LLL loops.  In practice
this means that said machines have to do very well on vectorizable code,
while not falling down badly on the scalar stuff (lest Amdahl's law
come to call.)

So while it's ok to chortle at how the micros have caught up on the scalar
stuff, I think it would be an unwarranted extrapolation to imply that the
supers have been superseded unless you also specify the workload.
And by the way, it's the design constraints at the heavy-duty, high
parallelism, all functional-units-going-full-tilt-using-the-entire-memory-
bandwidth that make the price of the supercomputers so high, not the
constraints that predominate at the scalar end.  That's why I conclude
that when the micro/workstation guys want to play in the supercomputer
sandbox they'll either have to bring their piggy banks to buy the
appropriate I/O and memory, or convince the users that they can live
without all that performance.

Bob Colwell               ..!uunet!mfci!colwell
Multiflow Computer     or colwell@multiflow.com
31 Business Park Dr.
Branford, CT 06405     203-488-6090