| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Frankly I Don't See Either Side As the Future...Frankly I Don't See Either Side As the Future...Posted Oct 24, 2005 5:39 UTC (Mon) by emkey (guest, #144)In reply to: Frankly I Don't See Either Side As the Future... by dvdeug Parent article: Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet)
In the world of scientific computing many problems lend themselves well to massive parallelization. And as you add more cpu's you can increase the problem size and/or decrease the scale at which you simulate. More CPU's means new problems can be solved. It is my understanding that scientists could easily make use of a system ten or even twenty times as fast as BlueGene/L.
You do touch on an important issue though. Some problems may take a second or less per clock step. Others might take many times as long. The quicker the clock cycle the more likely a particular application is to benefit from the sort of approach that IBM took with BlueGene/L, as random perturbations are going to have a much larger impact on performance in that scenario.
IBM has announced the sale of additional systems beyond the original sale. I doubt these systems are cheap, so at least some people see value in them.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||