Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple iPad 2 As Fast As the Cray-2 Supercomputer

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the great-I'll-take-a-dozen dept.

Supercomputing 231

An anonymous reader writes "Presenting at the IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing conference, a researcher from the University of Tennessee presented evidence that the iPad 2 is as fast as the original Cray-2 supercomputer. Performance improvements were made to the iPad 2 LINPACK software by writing Python for generating and testing various Assembly routines. The researcher also found that the ARM Cortex-A9 easily beats the NVIDIA/AMD GPUs and latest Intel/AMD workstation CPUs in performance-per-Watt efficiency."

cancel ×

231 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

My wristwatch (3, Informative)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#41367305)

Is more powerful than the Atanasoff machine [wikipedia.org] !

Re:My wristwatch (5, Insightful)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about 2 years ago | (#41367785)

Other things that are as fast as Cray 2 supercomputer - about a million ancient PCs... but putting Apple in the title suddenly makes this news.

Re:My wristwatch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368079)

Seriously, IIRC, they're about half as powerful as an Xbox. No, not an Xbox 360. A just as descriptive headline: iPad 2 Can't Play Halo CE.

remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 (2, Informative)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 years ago | (#41368489)

you need to remember, however, that the software for these consumer devices is nowhere close to that on the Crays. no optimization is done any more... for you script kiddies, "optimization" means you manually with the assembly language, or automatically in the compiler, try several things and pick the one that uses the least memory/processor cycles/OSPF if multithreaded/whatever based on what you want to gain by optimizing code. all this "include.kitchensink" stuff just packs in extra code crap in case any of it is needed.

and Clippy or Bob never ran on a Cray, either.

Obviously. (5, Funny)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 2 years ago | (#41367325)

9.80665 m/s^2

Re:Obviously. (1)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#41367413)

9.80665 m/s^2

I think yours is a case of normal gravity.
Thus no doctor is needed.

Re:Obviously. (5, Funny)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#41367465)

I think the Cray will have a higher terminal velocity than the iPad

Re:Obviously. (2)

frosty_tsm (933163) | about 2 years ago | (#41368073)

I think the Cray will have a higher terminal velocity than the iPad

Now that's a race I want to see.

Re:Obviously. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368345)

I think the Cray will have a higher terminal velocity than the iPad

[nerd mode]
It won't probably. The speed of an object is not determined by its mass. It may actually be lower because the Cray is bigger and has a larger surface area for air resistance to affect it.

It'd likely have more kinetic energy though.
[/nerd mode]

o rly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367329)

i just have to lulz

My desktop computer is way more powerful than that (4, Insightful)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 2 years ago | (#41367387)

Seriously.

Faster than a Cray Super computer?! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367389)

What fanbois won't say about Apple!

Now, were's the "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of iPads!" jokes?

Re:Faster than a Cray Super computer?! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367615)

Their stats are iPadded.

Re:Faster than a Cray Super computer?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367629)

What fanbois won't say about Apple!

Now, were's the "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of iPads!" jokes?

Screw that.

Imagine a beowulf cluster of Cray-2s -- those iPads won't keep your entire building well-heated in winter!

Android is too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367399)

When measured in IFCpS (Involuntary Force Closes per Second).

OMFG (5, Interesting)

MogNuts (97512) | about 2 years ago | (#41367401)

Oh my god. If I have to read one more BS Apple story like this on the internet, I'm going to go nuts.

Apple lovers must be stopped. They're driving ad revenue and hits to all these *retarded* articles. They keep writing them because people keep clicking on them. STOP IT people!

Maybe I should just follow "if u can't beat em, join em." I should just post "Using an iPhone gives you crabs" or "iPhone as valuable as cream of wheat" and watch the money roll in.

I just laugh. Remember that new screw hoax? They said "they just make it too easy."

Re:OMFG (-1, Flamebait)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | about 2 years ago | (#41367481)

I'd rather read a pointless Apple story than a Google story in which any anti-Google comment gets modded away and any pro-Google comment gets modded up, regardless of merit. Pointless is better than malicious or deceptive.

Re:OMFG (0, Offtopic)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#41367507)

This, a thousand times this.

Re:OMFG (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367727)

I think we must read two entirely different slashdots.

Re:OMFG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367525)

This just in - the Apple iPhone also beats a Ford Taurus in terms of a Computing Power per Gallons of Gasoline...

**and on that note, obligatory XKCD!**

http://what-if.xkcd.com/11/ [xkcd.com]

Re:OMFG (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41367541)

I just laugh. Remember that new screw hoax? They said "they just make it too easy."

Jimmy Kimmel recently went out on the street [hollywoodreporter.com] with an iPhone 4S and passed it off as the new iPhone 5 and asked people what they thought of it. Not one of them realized it was the old iPhone 4S. If that doesn't say something about the mindset of Apple's userbase, I don't know what does.

Re:OMFG (2, Insightful)

imagined.by (2589739) | about 2 years ago | (#41367697)

Well, you could basically do that with any other phone, and everyone who doesn't know the older generation phone will react this way.

This says more about psychology and especially trust in authority figures than anything about the iPhone or even phones for that matter.

Re:OMFG (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367843)

If you actually follow that link you'll see that one of those who looked at the 'iPhone 5' compared it with his 4S and said:

'“It’s a lot higher quality,” he said of the faux-iPhone 5. “If you drop it, it looks like it’s not going to break"'

Re:OMFG (4, Informative)

adonoman (624929) | about 2 years ago | (#41367849)

Except that at least one of the people interviewed had the current 4S, and was still blown away by the weight, look, and performance of the identical phone handed to him. These weren't people unfamiliar with iPhones.

Re:OMFG (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367701)

Or why Samsung's sales are so high.

Re:OMFG (4, Insightful)

pdabbadabba (720526) | about 2 years ago | (#41368063)

Ever wonder what percentage of people they interviewed actually made it on TV? It's hard to draw general conclusions from a handful of people saying stupid things on TV when saying that very stupid thing was required to get on television. Still: there is no doubt that those were some very stupid people.

Re:OMFG (2)

pdabbadabba (720526) | about 2 years ago | (#41368129)

I should have added: the subset of those people who owned iPhone 4Ses were very stupid. If you don't regularly use an iPhone 4S, then it's not so strange that you think an iPhone 4S is fast shiny and new. And it certainly doesn't say anything about the "mindset of Apple's userbase" if the people interviewed weren't iPhone users.

And if I'm reading the other comments here correctly, nobody so much as alleges that this leaves more than a single very stupid person identified by Jimmy Kimmel.

Re:OMFG (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#41368277)

Or as Bill Burr puts it, "of course having a gun in the house increases your chances of an accidental gun injury -- having a swimming pool in the backyard also increase your chances of drowning"

Re:OMFG (3, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 2 years ago | (#41368189)

Rick Mercer has gone out and talked to Americans and had many an interesting conversation. If that doesn't say something about the mindset of Americans, I don't know what does.

Here, watch the video if you'd like a sample: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7111005509913775935 [google.ca]

See what I did there. I used a comedian's skit where he puts a camera in someone's face and airs the best reactions to make a point. Interesting that, wouldn't you say? Might even relate to the point you're trying to make.

Re:OMFG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367545)

They keep writing them because people keep clicking on them.

Well, they're not getting anything out of Slashdot because no one here reads the articles anyway!

I sure didn't...

Re:OMFG (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367597)

Did you even fucking read the article, faggot?

Re:OMFG (5, Informative)

PaulUTK (1085375) | about 2 years ago | (#41367691)

I'm not sure you actually "read one more BS Apple story", this has nothing to do with how great Apple is. This was presented by Dr. Luszczek here in my research group at the Innovative Computing Laboratory to show the efficiency of ARM vs server class CPUs and GPUs. The only readily accessible ARM we could develop on at the time was the iPad2. As with most journalism, the main point of the presentation wasn't what the title of the story was.

Re:OMFG (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 2 years ago | (#41367797)

Apple lovers must be stopped. They're driving ad revenue and hits to all these *retarded* articles. They keep writing them because people keep clicking on them. STOP IT people!

Don't worry, nobody ever reads TFA anyways.

Re:OMFG (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#41367839)

Apple lovers must be stopped.

Hey, don't blame us. We hate fluff stories too.

Re:OMFG (1)

abigor (540274) | about 2 years ago | (#41368029)

Settle down, NumbNuts. They happened to use an iPad because it contains an ARM chip. It's idiots like you that make Slashdot basically unreadable.

Re:OMFG (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about 2 years ago | (#41368161)

Settle down, NumbNuts. They happened to use an iPad because it contains an ARM chip. It's idiots like you that make Slashdot basically unreadable.

To be fair, the very mention of Apple products seems to have this effect on all public forums. It's as if there is some kind of Apple field that shuts down higher brain functions and forces everyone to revert to purely emotional reactions.

Re:OMFG (0)

LoudMusic (199347) | about 2 years ago | (#41368061)

Apple figured something out several years ago. There are more idiots in the world than intelligent people. And they're taking money away from those idiots at an alarming rate.

Re:OMFG (1, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 2 years ago | (#41368223)

Oh my god. If I have to read one more BS Apple story like this on the internet, I'm going to go nuts

Oh my god. If I have to read one more utterly ignorant post that completely misses the point of the article, I'm ... well, sadly, it's going to happen because twits like you are everywhere of late...

Others have already pointed out - the article is about ARM. It just happened to be an iPad 2 that was used in the testing.

Re:OMFG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368399)

Oh my god. If I have to read one more BS Apple story like this on the internet, I'm going to go nuts.

popularity_of_brand / number_of_consumers_who_post_on_the_internet = probability_you_will_see_BS_stories_about_brand

Save the analyst fees. Just unplug now.

Apple lovers must be stopped. They're driving ad revenue and hits to all these *retarded* articles. They keep writing them because people keep clicking on them.

This is slashdot. No one clicks through to the actual articles. Most people just came to see what kinds of funny comments people posted after getting too hot under the collar about BS stories.

OMG (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367403)

Someone put an APPL board member's dick in my mouth!!!!!!

New from InGen, Inc. (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | about 2 years ago | (#41367421)

Need to keep your genetically engineered amusement park attractions under control? There is an app for that!

This just In! (5, Funny)

Ziggitz (2637281) | about 2 years ago | (#41367427)

Newer smaller computer is faster than older larger computer! Some didn't think it possible, one of those people submitted the article under the false impression that anyone gave a fuck.

But... (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41367435)

Does it run Linux?

Re:But... (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | about 2 years ago | (#41367535)

Linux should be portable to the Cray platform. Sounds like a fun project, has anyone access to a Cray 2 for testing and debugging?

Re:But... (1)

mikew03 (186778) | about 2 years ago | (#41367715)

The Cray-2 had a variant of Unix called UniCos (Unix Cray operating system). I'm sure slashdot could port Linux to it :).

You lost me at Python (1)

Brannon (221550) | about 2 years ago | (#41367441)

> Performance improvements were made to the iPad 2 LINPACK software by writing Python

You lost me there.

> ...for generating and testing various Assembly routines.

That makes more sense.

Re:You lost me at Python (2)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 2 years ago | (#41367499)

It was obvious by the Cray 2 / iPad 2 comparison that this is BS.

iPad 2 and a million other things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367445)

are all faster than a Cray 2. I'm getting sick and tired of everything being compared to a child's toy.

Re:iPad 2 and a million other things (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#41367603)

The Cray 2 was a child's toy?

I guess that kid grew up to be a programmer or something.

Doesn't surprise me.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367453)

Iron Sky [wikipedia.org] , anybody?

Re:Doesn't surprise me.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367469)

So you are the other Laibach fan here...

I knew the Cray-2 (5, Interesting)

mikew03 (186778) | about 2 years ago | (#41367485)

I was privileged to program on the Cray-2 back in the day. It was an awesome machine if you had the right kinds of problems for it to solve. My hat is off to the company who let me use the fastest computer in the world for my vi sessions :). That said it;s hardly surprising that the march of Moore's law has resulted in an iPad today beating a computer 13 or so years its senior.

Wow! Is it true... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367709)

that you had to crawl 40 miles uphill on your bare hands and knees in the snow just to use the clickity-clack machine to punch the little holes into the cardboard cards?

Couldn't you just have used the touch screen?

Re:I knew the Cray-2 (4, Informative)

ichthus (72442) | about 2 years ago | (#41367829)

27 or so years its senior. [wikipedia.org] Wow, pretty neat, huh? Also, my Galaxy S2 is waaaaay faster than my Atari 800.

Re:I knew the Cray-2 (2)

mikew03 (186778) | about 2 years ago | (#41368023)

Oops, yes I seem to have lost a decade somewhere, guess my slow clock speed is showing.

Re:I knew the Cray-2 (3, Informative)

gander666 (723553) | about 2 years ago | (#41367851)

When I started my Master's thesis, I began learning to program the Cray-XMP. In Fortran still, with some C (pre-ANSI C for you whippersnappers). Then I got a job, and that opportunity fell by the wayside. I still am in awe with how those machines were optimized.

Of course today, I would just use Matlab, and if I needed more speed, I would compile it to C++ and run natively. But it has been a long time since I have done any serious number crunching.

For a good read, pick up "Turing's Cathedral", it is a good story of the birth of electronic digital computers, and an eye-opener.

Re:I knew the Cray-2 (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about 2 years ago | (#41368203)

... it was an awesome machine if you had the right kinds of problems for it to solve...

Indeed it was, I got to use one briefly in the 90's that ran Unicos and it took my breath away. (When I typed "emacs" it started immediately!!)

TDP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367489)

Did he really use TDP to calculate performance-per-watt instead of doing real measurements?

Unsurprising (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367505)

This just proves that Cray copied off of Apple. Hopefully Apple will sue them into oblivion.

Cray Superior (1)

puddingebola (2036796) | about 2 years ago | (#41367513)

But the iPad 2 doesn't have reciprocal approximation in place of the outdated mathermatical operation called division. Wake up Apple, it's the 21st century.

What the headline giveth . . . (3, Interesting)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 2 years ago | (#41367517)

. . . the article taketh away.

From the Phoronix article: "When benchmarking the Apple iPad 2, the University of Tennessee employee achieved 4 GFLOPS per Watt on the ARM SoC (measured at the chip level)."

The linked graphs don't have units on them, so I have to assume until proven otherwise that the article is correct. But performance per watt, while a valid comparison, doesn't equate to "faster than a Cray-2" in the sense I read the headline, since I assume the Cray-2 pulled quite a bit more power than the iPad. To be "faster than a Cray-2", you really would need a Beowulf cluster of iPad processors.

Re:What the headline giveth . . . (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 2 years ago | (#41367563)

I'm not up on Linpack's innards, but Linpack results given by ROM dev's were always held in great skepticism because a dev could cheat the results by boosting performance in specific areas to make the results look better than they should have been. Is this what they did here?

Re:What the headline giveth . . . (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 2 years ago | (#41367601)

I suppose 'measured at the chip level' makes this less likely than running a Linpack app on a device, but couldn't the results still be fudged in some way?

Re:What the headline giveth . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368141)

I think 'measured at the chip level' refers to power consumption, not GFLOPS.

Yes, the results could be "fudged". But this is Jack Dongarra, so if you really think he's doing that, FOAD. (If you don't know who Jack Dongarra is, read this [wikipedia.org] , then FOAD.)

Re:What the headline giveth . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367751)

. . . the article taketh away.

From the Phoronix article: "When benchmarking the Apple iPad 2, the University of Tennessee employee achieved 4 GFLOPS per Watt on the ARM SoC (measured at the chip level)."

The linked graphs don't have units on them, so I have to assume until proven otherwise that the article is correct. But performance per watt, while a valid comparison, doesn't equate to "faster than a Cray-2" in the sense I read the headline, since I assume the Cray-2 pulled quite a bit more power than the iPad. To be "faster than a Cray-2", you really would need a Beowulf cluster of iPad processors.

According to wikipedia, the Cray-2 [wikipedia.org] "was capable of 1.9 GFLOPS peak performance" (but is 1.9GFLOPS for a normal 4-processor Cray-2, or NERSC's 8-way machine?), so assuming the iPad draws at least 0.5W, it would do 0.5W * 4 GFLOPS/W = 2 GFLOPS total, thus a single iPad would beat a single Cray-2.

You seem to underestimate Moore's law over 25 years. Remember, the Cray-2 had 4 (massively vectorized) cores running at only 244 MHz.

Re:What the headline giveth . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367879)

Oh, and BTW, the Cray-2 used a couple hundred kW, so your notion that the iPad only now matches it for performance/W is ridiculous. An iPad running a calculator app with a user typing in numbers is closer to the cray's performance/W. (And I should have been clear: that's where Moore's law comes in -- more transistors/area means the same computing power with less power. The exponential increase of clock rates, of course, was somebody else's law (can't remember whose) and has already capped out.)

Re:What the headline giveth . . . (1)

WilliamBaughman (1312511) | about 2 years ago | (#41367887)

Yeah, the presentation says TDP so they didn't measure consumption. I guess Jack and Piotr didn't feel like cracking their iPad open and probing it with a voltmeter. Phoronix may have meant "counting only the chip" and made a syntactic error.

Re:What the headline giveth . . . (1)

WilliamBaughman (1312511) | about 2 years ago | (#41368047)

Update: Looking at David Kanter's site (graph 1 [realworldtech.com] and graph 2 [realworldtech.com] ) the AMD parts and Intel server parts come in at about the efficiency listed in the chart (which again is based on peak performance and published TDP). NVIDIA's Kepler and Intel's Silverthorne seem to be more efficient in the real world than as presented from that calculation. I have no idea about the Cortex A9, there are a million different versions and I can't recall seeing hard numbers for the one in the iPad 2, some of which are on a 40 nm process and some of which are on a 32 nm process, further muddying the waters. Either way, it's cool research.

Re:What the headline giveth . . . (1)

slew (2918) | about 2 years ago | (#41368493)

...To be "faster than a Cray-2", you really would need a Beowulf cluster of iPad processors.

Cray2 -> 2GFLOPS total
iPad2 -> dual-core 1GHz A9+ GPU...

The Neon coprocessor on each ARM A9 is SIMD 2x32-bit Flops/clock. On this basis, it's not to hard to believe a single iPad2 has more raw Gflops than a Cray2 (w/o needing a beowulf cluster).

On the other hand, the Cray2 was available way back in 1985, (the year that Steve Jobs got kicked out of Apple)...

Researcher = Jack Dongarra (4, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#41367549)

who has been publishing the Top 500 Supercomputer list for many, many years. I would bet that he ran Linpack himself on the Cray-2.

Evolution (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367557)

Decades of Moore's law and clever mniaturization lead us to freaking hipster filtering JPEG crap on Instagram, faster. Slow clap.

Ummm...wutt? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41367559)

That article is a poorly-written piece of shit.

1. Is this operations per second per watt or operations per second?

2. Is this LINPACK metric something that exercises the Crey's massive pipeline architecture, where huge arrays of numbers (the vectors) were operated on at lightning speed through pipeline (assembly line-style) chip design? Or is it just a looping test?

Re:Ummm...wutt? (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 2 years ago | (#41367755)

s this LINPACK metric something that exercises the Crey's massive pipeline architecture, where huge arrays of numbers (the vectors) were operated on at lightning speed through pipeline (assembly line-style) chip design? Or is it just a looping test?

Now that's a stupid question [netlib.org]

Re:Ummm...wutt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367997)

No MMOs worth playing at the moment

The original Everquest has changed so much that it is not the same game anymore, check it out.

Still a grind fest, but some nice features have been added.

But... will it blend? (4, Funny)

cpotoso (606303) | about 2 years ago | (#41367569)

Will the cray2 blend as well as the ipad2?

Re:But... will it blend? (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#41367659)

No. But the Cray has leather seats.

Re:But... will it blend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367995)

No. But the Cray has leather seats.

Leather seats were the Cray-1, dear idiot child.

The Cray-2 was the one with the fishtank.

Re:But... will it blend? (2)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | about 2 years ago | (#41368037)

Depends on how big a blender you have. The brochure [craysupercomputers.com] says the Cray 2 was 45 inches tall, 53 inches in diameter, and weighed 5500 pounds. [Aaaaaaand ... cue the "Yo Momma" jokes.] According to Guinness, the world's largest blender [guinnessworldrecords.com] was "4.79 m (16 ft 4 in) tall, 2.43 (8 ft) wide, 3.04 m (10 ft) deep and ... [was used] to make a 1, 324 litre (291 gal / 350 US gal) smoothie." Assuming the smoothie ingredients weighed the same as water, the blender was able to handle just shy of 3000 pounds. That's well shy of the Cray 2's weight, but the Guinness article doesn't make it clear if that was the blender's maximum weight limit.

And before you try to "Whoosh" me ... it's not a Whoosh if you enjoy figuring out the answer to the rhetorical question.

pfffffft (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#41367573)

ARM Cortex-A9 easily beats the NVIDIA/AMD GPUs and latest Intel/AMD workstation CPUs in performance-per-Watt efficiency

So, it is saying that a car with an engine that can get 400mpg is more economical than one with 30mpg, but they leave out the important part that it will take you 10x longer to get to your destination. I hate the trite "typical marketing", but that is what this is

Re:pfffffft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367891)

That's true for desktops maybe.

For servers performance per watt is probably much more important. 1000 xeons, 10,000 a9s - what difference does it make? Once my stuff is parallelized, it doesn't really matter if it executes on 1000 cores or 10k cores. I don't know how all the expenses break down - power usage is one component, but so is the number of physical components, space taken up, etc.

It comes down to what's cheaper, and the type of application. But I think it's wrong to dismiss ARM as slow. It doesn't make sense to compare one ARM processor to one Intel/AMD processor.

Re:pfffffft (2)

scheme (19778) | about 2 years ago | (#41368491)

That's true for desktops maybe.

For servers performance per watt is probably much more important. 1000 xeons, 10,000 a9s - what difference does it make? Once my stuff is parallelized, it doesn't really matter if it executes on 1000 cores or 10k cores. I don't know how all the expenses break down - power usage is one component, but so is the number of physical components, space taken up, etc.

It comes down to what's cheaper, and the type of application. But I think it's wrong to dismiss ARM as slow. It doesn't make sense to compare one ARM processor to one Intel/AMD processor.

That's not truly. Applying Amdahl's law, there's a lower limit in regards to the speedups you can achieve. To use an analogy, regardless of how many women are available, you're not really going to a new baby in less than 9 months. Even if your web server can handle 1 million requests in parallel, if each request will take a second to complete, that may be unacceptable. So if you have to hit certain latency requirements, then complaining about the ARM processors as being slow is perfectly valid.

Re:pfffffft (1)

anss123 (985305) | about 2 years ago | (#41368021)

So, it is saying that a car with an engine that can get 400mpg is more economical than one with 30mpg, but they leave out the important part that it will take you 10x longer to get to your destination. I hate the trite "typical marketing", but that is what this is

Unlike with engines if it's truly better on the "performance per watt" scale you can build super computers with 10x, 100x, whatever it takes of extra chips, to get there faster on the same power budget; Which would make Arm A9 viable for people with LINPACK like workloads, unless the cost of extra networking gear (and other support hardware), kills them.

Wasn't some company working on an Arm based super computer? They must be thrilled.

Warning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367591)

When building/testing your cluster. Never, ever use that linpack crap. Test your own software.

Whop de do.. (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41367617)

I would hope we had advanced since then. The point of this 'revelation' was what? Click ad revenue generation?

it is so much more than that!! (4, Funny)

jsveiga (465473) | about 2 years ago | (#41367623)

It has been demonstrated that the ipad 2 is lighter than an Apple II.

The ipad 2 user interface has been tested and proven much better than the Zilog Z80's.

On a blind test, the ipad's screen resolution has been voted subjectively better than the MSX's!

And an independent research confirmed that it has more available apps than the HP41C!

In a random test with a control group, 3 out of 5 teenagers prefer the ipad when offered the option of an ipad or a Newton, and 2 out of 4 girls prefer the ipad over Justin "Beaver".

Oh my God, the ipad is really the best thing in the whole universe! No, it has been demonstrated that it is better than 5 universes put together with whipped cream and strawberries on top!!

I'm disappointed (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41367625)

This far in, and still no comments about a Beowulf Cluster of iPads.

What has Slashdot become?

Re:I'm disappointed (1)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | about 2 years ago | (#41367853)

There was one up there - see 'Faster than a Cray Super computer?!'

Re:I'm disappointed (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41368207)

What has Slashdot become?

Slashdot has finally become sentient and decided to automatically remove all Beowulf Cluster comments.
/Still no unicode support

Cycles != results (2)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#41367631)

What a wasteful world we live in.

All these great things that have been done on a Cray now equal the numbing stupidity of things like Facebook on an iPad?

NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367635)

The ipad2 is ""NOT"" as powerful as a cray 2!!!!

A Cray 2 can pump out 1.9GFLOPS, an ipad2 can put out about 300-400Mflops. About as much as a early PentiumPro

Re:NOT! (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 2 years ago | (#41367951)

Apparently, Jack Dongara is smarter than you.

Re:NOT! (1)

godrik (1287354) | about 2 years ago | (#41368411)

GP said: "A Cray 2 can pump out 1.9GFLOPS, an ipad2 can put out about 300-400Mflops. About as much as a early PentiumPro"

I am not sure a cray 2 can pump 1.9GFlop/s but an ipad 2 can do more than 300MFlop/s. The processor is clocked a 1 Ghz. It is dual core and it supports NEON vectorial instruction that can do multiple single floating point instruction at a time. (I am not sure exactly how many, I'd need to go to the actual spec, there might be fused multipy-add.) So I am pretty sure the theoretical peak performance is over 2GFlop/s. Probably around 4GFlop/s.

After that, I am not sure you can run linpackwith that speed. But 300MFlop/s seems quite low.

Moreover, I know Jack Dongarra: I trust his experiments.

the POWER! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367661)

And what's all that computing power used for?

Facebook.

Re:the POWER! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#41367763)

The Cray connection made me thing of The Last Starfighter.

With all of the artist wannabe advertising approaches, you would think that Apple would be all over the idea of creating 3D models and rendering them on your portable touch screen Cray.

The Cray would hurt more ... (2)

Wansu (846) | about 2 years ago | (#41367777)

... if dropped on your foot.

If that is equal to the iPhone 4S or 5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367791)

I can finally look forward to the question "is that a Cray-2 in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me"?

Congratulations to Cray (1)

Dishwasha (125561) | about 2 years ago | (#41367857)

I find that to be simply amazing that hand-held consumer devices are only now matching and exceeding computing hardware that was invented over 27 years ago.

Is this an elaborate joke? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 2 years ago | (#41368019)

One of the slides is titled "Let's Do Assembly ... in Python"

For Science! (1)

petteyg359 (1847514) | about 2 years ago | (#41368199)

Decades later, technological advancements have been made! Everyone (especially those brainwashed Apple cultists) was astounded when science decided it wasn't going to sit there and do nothing!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>