LFCS: A $99 not supercomputer

Posted May 11, 2013 3:42 UTC (Sat) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
In reply to: LFCS: A $99 *not* supercomputer by daglwn
Parent article: LFCS: A $99 supercomputer

It's not going to land on the top 500, no. I dont think that clustered supercomputers are the definition of supercomputer. Personally, I think that the high degree of parallelism warrants the use.

(I also work in HPC :-)

LFCS: A $99 not supercomputer

Posted May 14, 2013 12:28 UTC (Tue) by jzbiciak (guest, #5246) [Link]

Of course, how are you going to feed a Parallella? Unless I misunderstood the diagram, the pipes into it are way too small. It'll work for exhaustive-search type algorithms with small working sets and high locality, but I'm skeptical it scales to larger problems well.

I work on processors that get pressed into HPC duty, and we see the rest of the system as being as important, or often even more important than the CPUs themselves. It's about machine balance.

(I thought about linking one of our latest chips, but then considered it might be bad form.)