🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <789@stat.fsu.edu> mccalpin@stat.fsu.edu (John Mccalpin) writes:
>In article <788@stat.fsu.edu> I wrote:
.....
>To which brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) replied:
.....

>By the way, the most cost-effective machine on my code is the new
>Stardent 3000.  It runs at about 1/15 of the speed of the Cray on a
>per-cpu basis and is less than 1/50 of the cost....  Too bad I can't
>afford one!

My brain may be jet-lagged, but if I ignore the random shots, I think
what I heard was:

1) The protagonists in this argument, both of whom have access to various
flavors of supercomputers and Killer Micros, and either of whom would happily
consume infinite bunches of cycles:
	a) Mostly agree on the fundamentals, which I think are:
		a1) Supercomputers are still way ahead of KMs on raw performance		for vectorizable stuff.
		a2) KMs are ahead of supercomputers on cost-performance for
		scalar things.
		a3) Supercomputers are still Good Things, and they'd like them
		to be free, but since they aren't, it's rapidly becoming a good
		idea to move scalar codes to KMs when possible, and let the
		Supers spend more of their time doing what they do best.
		a4) Vector KMs (like Stardent) might be ahead of supers on
		cost/performance for at least some vector codes.
		a5) The KMs (as a group) are gaining, at least somewhat.
	b) Maybe disagree a little on:
		b1) Whether KMs are ahead on raw scalar performance (since some
		of this depends on exactly when the newest KMs ship, and what
		supers/minisupers appear in the same timeframe. And of course,
		this all depends on the benchmark...
		b2) Whether scalar KMs are effectively (i.e., in the necessarily
		large configurations) ahead in cost/performance on vector probs.
		b3) Exactly how fast the KMs are gaining.
I think this whole argument can interestingly be reduced to filling in this
chart [which I can't do, but maybe others can]:

Relative Performance of KMs [pick some] versus some supers [pick some] in 1990:

KM type		Problem Type
		Scalar	Scalar	Vector	Vector	Paral.	Paral.	Vec-Par	Vec-Par
		Perf	Cst/Per	Perf	Cst/Prf	Perf	Cst/Prf	Perf	Cst/Prf

Fast Scalar Uni	>=	>	<	?
Scalar Multi		>
Vector Multi		>	<	>

So, for instance, pick RC6280, SGI 4D/xxx, Stardent, vs (some) current Cray,
and try filling in the boxes with <, =, or >, at least (i.e., < means the
KM is less good than super, etc).  (I've filled in what I thought I heard,
with the ? showing an argument.)

Is that at least a more definite framework for the argument?  If not, what is?
-- 
-john mashey	DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc>
UUCP: 	{ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash  OR  mash@mips.com
DDD:  	408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253
USPS: 	MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086