Slashdot Mirror


DIY 1980s "Non-Von" Supercomputer

Brietech writes "Ever wanted to own your own supercomputer? This guy recreated a 31-processor SIMD supercomputer from the early 1980s called the 'Non-Von 1' in an FPGA. It uses a 'Non-Von Neumann' architecture, and was intended for extremely fast database searches and artificial intelligence applications. Full-scale models were intended to have more than a million processors. It's a cool project for those interested in 'alternative' computer architectures, and yes, full source code (Verilog) is available, along with a python library to program it with." Hope the WIPO patent has expired.

5 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Neat... by kdawson+(3715) · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check this out...

    Article at /dev/null.

    Everything that you wanted to know and more. An interesting read.

  2. GOOGLE CACHE LINK by Brietech · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    I'm perfect in every way, except for my humility.
  3. Virtualization vs Hardware vs Verilog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Folks just don't understand what FPGA's do.

    "So, that's neat and all but did I misunderstand something. His model doesn't seem that powerful unless he was using modern processors?"

    It's implemented in HARDWARE. Everything runs in parallel. To do the same on a "modern" processor, would require 300-400Mhz. A FPGA running at a [modest] 25Mhz could get the same or better performance.

    "I can't help but wonder if this couldn't be emulated for a fraction of the price. Are there any virtualization systems out there that could accomplish what this guy did? I imagine something along the lines of GNS3 might work..."

    FPGA's are cheap. A Spartan-3 board can be had for 100-200, and probably hold 2-3 32 node cpu's.

    Programmers just don't understand the difference between say verilog, and C/C++/Java.

    verilog is the basic building block of CPU's. Everything is done in PARALLEL by default, while in C++/Java everything is done SERIALLY.

  4. Transputers were for MIMD systems by N+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wasn't the transputer an example of this architecture? I'm old enough to be able to say "Get off my lawn!" and remember when the transputer came out; it caused quite a stir.

    The transputer was a RISC-ish CPU with 4 high speed DMA/serial links allowing it to be easily connected to other Transputers (each with its own local memory) to form a network. As such, it could be used to build a large MIMD system - not a SIMD one.

    Transputers (+ the Occam language) supported multi-threaded programming with very fast context switches and, for its time, they also had very good FP performance when compared to the contemporary x86+float coprocessor.

  5. Re:Neat... by topherama · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uhhh... right here. Now don't say I didn't warn you, but it's pretty relevant.

    Link attempts to install a virus; need to kill his comment.