Slashdot Mirror


Apple iPad 2 As Fast As the Cray-2 Supercomputer

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."

231 comments

  1. My wristwatch by aglider · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is more powerful than the Atanasoff machine!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:My wristwatch by wiedzmin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    2. Re:My wristwatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:My wristwatch by raygundan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your R is not C. Carmack put the iPad 2 at roughly half the performance of the 360, which puts the "Retina iPad" right in the ballpark of the 360, although with twice the working RAM.

    4. Re:My wristwatch by Tuidjy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, and my bicycle smokes any Ferrari... in miles per calorie efficiency.

      The iPad2 is the second coming of Christ, we got it already.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    5. Re:My wristwatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh i thought it was doomed because it was a feminine hygiene product and didn't run flash. Wrong again neckbeard.

    6. Re:My wristwatch by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      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.

      No, people claiming the iPad can't be used for content creation does. At least we now know it can't be computing power they are complaining about.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    7. Re:My wristwatch by atlasdropperofworlds · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to wikipedia, the GPU in the XBox 360 puts out 240 GFLOPS. The CPU is harder to nail down, but it seems to have a peak around 115 GFLOPS.

      The iPad 3 has a CPU that, from what I hear, has a peak capacity of 1.5 GFLOPS. The SGX 543MP2 in the new iPad 3 has 4 cores and does 6.4 GFLOPS per core, per 200 MHz. If we assume the 4 cores are clocks at 600 Mhz, that would mean the GPU output would be, in theory, 77.6 GFLOPS.

      In short, whatever Carmack was thinking or testing, he sure wasn't hitting the peak performance of the Xbox - the console is still leagues ahead of the mobile CPUs and GPUs, and it's 7 years old.

    8. Re:My wristwatch by teuben · · Score: 1

      right, who cares. my current few years old desktop is 100 times a cray-2.... some random program that i use, so it's biased, but yes, who cares.

    9. Re:My wristwatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and unfortunately, 4x the pixels to fill :( making it a net loss overall

    10. Re:My wristwatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add to that list....

      my Android phone.

    11. Re:My wristwatch by hazydave · · Score: 2

      The Samsung Galaxy SIII is faster than four Cray Y-MPs (or a couple of billion HP45 calculators)... at least if you're not too particularly about how your GFLOPS are served up. It's also got memory, unless you upgraded to the Y-MP M90. And uses quite a bit less power. That's 24 years for ya!

      Nothing particularly useful or interesting about such observations, I suppose, unless you put the name "Apple" in the title. Or maybe just an Apple fan's way of dealing with the iPad 2 not being a terribly fast device, as mobile devices go. But watch out, all you 80s supercomputers.

      My kids Nintendos have also been really abusive to our Cray 1, chasing it around the house, picking on it, calling it "pokey" and "turtle-boy", and just being bratty. Even the Nintendo 64, who's old enough to know better.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    12. Re:My wristwatch by hazydave · · Score: 2

      Not in a practical way, though. The iPad Don't-Call-Me-3 has twice the GPU performance (SGX 543MP4 vs. SGX 543MP2), but four times the pixels to paint.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    13. Re:My wristwatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My advice would be to lighten up Francis, take a step back,and look around -- you're living in the future. As someone who's easily old enough to remember when the Cray-2 was cutting edge, when the Motorola StarTAC was state-of-the-art cellphone technology, and who used AutoCAD on a high-end 80286 PC, trust me: iPads and iPhones and Android phones and Galaxy Tabs are in fact amazing.

    14. Re:My wristwatch by pjfontillas · · Score: 1

      The iPad2 is the second coming of Christ, we got it already.

      If the iPad2 is the second coming of Christ then the New iPad is...?

      --
      Life. Is. Good.
  2. Obviously. by Kaenneth · · Score: 5, Funny

    9.80665 m/s^2

    1. Re:Obviously. by aglider · · Score: 1

      9.80665 m/s^2

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

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    2. Re:Obviously. by Bigby · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    3. Re:Obviously. by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

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

      Now that's a race I want to see.

    4. Re:Obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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]

    5. Re:Obviously. by raygundan · · Score: 2

      Nah, I bet the Cray wins. The iPad is probably both denser *and* more aerodynamic.

      "Cray Outperforms iPad in Crucial Terminal Speed Tests"

    6. Re:Obviously. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Apple's legal team should join in to ensure the race is fair.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    7. Re:Obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Not in a vacuum.

    8. Re:Obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      [nerd mode]
      You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

      Terminal velocity is the point at which an object moving through a fluid (typically, air, though other fluids are also applicable) is experiencing no net acceleration - that is, the force propelling it is equal (and opposite) to the force of drag acting on the object as it moves through the fluid.

      It's not directly a function of the mass of the object, but the mass of the object certainly has an effect, because the force exerted by gravity is larger on larger masses - f=ma, remember. This means to that two identically-shaped objects dropped from the same height through the same fluid, but constructed of different materials so they had different masses, would have different terminal velocity - Imagine I drop a 1 cubic meter block of cork, and a 1 cubic meter block of cement. The cork would have a much lower terminal velocity, because it has less mass, even though it's volume would be the same as the cubic meter block of cement.

      If it "had more kinetic energy," that means it has "more force" (f = ma, remember?), which means, all other things being equal, the higher-mass object would have a higher terminal velocity, higher kinetic energy, thus more force transmitted to the surface it strikes on impact.

      Seriously, if you're going to hang around on Slashdot, please at least try to understand basic mechanics, will you?
      [/nerd mode]

    9. Re:Obviously. by toruonu · · Score: 1

      Not sure. Terminal velocity is determined by air resistance. The surface area of a Cray2 is larger therefore it'd probably fall slower assuming the iPad managed to keep the sharp surface pointed towards the ground. Of course if the iPad went nicely flat it may well have a relative resistive surface that's larger so block better. Hmm... This isn't that trivial to solve I think. We need an experiment.

    10. Re:Obviously. by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      The surface area of an elephant is much higher than the surface area of a feather and yet it has a higher terminal velocity.

      Absolute surface area is not important, it is the surface area to mass ratio and aerodynamics. I'm willing to bet that the surface area to mass ratio of the Cray 2 is much lower than that of the iPad because surface area increases with the square of length but mass increases with the cube of length. Also, surface area to mass ratio depends on the shape of the object. A flat tablet shape is bad for minimising the ratio.

      If the iPad does manage to remain edge on, it might have a chance but I would not be sure.

      By the way: are we defining the Cray 2 as just the electronics, or are we throwing the cooling plant out of the plane too?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    11. Re:Obviously. by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      Not to forget: the iPad is optimized to weigh as little as possible. Seymour Cray didn't have to optimize for that.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    12. Re:Obviously. by highphilosopher · · Score: 1

      No mod points available right now, but you Rock dude!

    13. Re:Obviously. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You also neglected the effect of Cd and mass. The problem being that the Cd of a flat object is not determinable without experimentation. Why? Because the "best" Cd is generally what is used, but flat objects flutter. Drop a piece of paper on its side, it quickly turns and presents the broad side. Cut a strip 1" wide and 12" long and drop it (from any orientation). What does it do? Rotate rapidly around the long axis, while falling at a diagonal. So what would a tablet do when dropped? Probably flutter and spin a little, slowing it down more than a more round-ish shape.

    14. Re:Obviously. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What is the terminal velocity in a vacuum?

    15. Re:Obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Escape velocity, of course.

  3. o rly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i just have to lulz

  4. My desktop computer is way more powerful than that by Lord+Lode · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously.

  5. Faster than a Cray Super computer?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    What fanbois won't say about Apple!

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

    1. Re:Faster than a Cray Super computer?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Their stats are iPadded.

    2. Re:Faster than a Cray Super computer?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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!

    3. Re:Faster than a Cray Super computer?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because the IEEE HPEC fellows are all tangled up in pushing Apple products.
       
      These are the people making the systems you're talking about, not just some turds lingering around Slashdot, trying to get their self-esteem up by bitching and moaning about OTS bullshit.

  6. Android is too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  7. OMFG by MogNuts · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."

    1. Re:OMFG by kiriath · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This, a thousand times this.

    2. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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/

    3. Re:OMFG by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      Jimmy Kimmel recently went out on the street 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.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

    5. Re:OMFG by PaulUTK · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:OMFG by imagined.by · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or why Samsung's sales are so high.

    8. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think we must read two entirely different slashdots.

    9. Re:OMFG by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:OMFG by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Apple lovers must be stopped.

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

    11. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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"'

    12. Re:OMFG by adonoman · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    13. Re:OMFG by abigor · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:OMFG by LoudMusic · · Score: 0

      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.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    15. Re:OMFG by pdabbadabba · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:OMFG by pdabbadabba · · Score: 2

      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.

    17. Re:OMFG by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    18. Re:OMFG by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      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.

    19. Re:OMFG by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.

    20. Re:OMFG by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      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"

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    21. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    22. Re:OMFG by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1

      The emotional reaction is exactly what Apple advertises to. It's intentional to trigger that particular area of your brain.
      Simon Sinek talks about it during this 18 minute talk:
      http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html

    23. Re:OMFG by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      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.

      Yes, I see what you did there. You missed the point. Wooshed it, you could even say. All this furvor over Apple's next product (whatever it is) is marketing. Perception equals reality for most people. They think the phone is faster because they're told it's faster, not because it is. It's like the difference between Coke and Pepsi. People insist they can tell the difference in taste, but when you take "Brown fizzy substance A" and "brown fizzy substance B" in a double-blind test, not many can.

      My point was that people who buy Apple products buy them because of brand identity, not the fact that it's "as fast as the cray-2 supercomputer" or any one of a hundred other statements. But they don't believe it's because of marketing -- they believe it's because it's better, faster, whatever. They have internalized an external message to the point where they can no longer distinguish it from their own perceptions and feelings. And it's not just Apple products', it's the result of marketing in general. Nobody believes it affects them, but it does. It really, really does.

      And it doesn't take a comedian to make that point... but it helps.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    24. Re:OMFG by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory meets the Reality Distortion Field.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    25. Re:OMFG by raygundan · · Score: 1

      > Not one of them realized it was the old iPhone 4S.

      Did that really happen? It isn't mentioned in your link-- I suspect that like a lot of these segments, they canvas for a while until they have enough idiots, and then edit the footage down to just the idiots.

      I'm not saying it's impossible, though.

    26. Re:OMFG by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      You sound like a 40 year old virgin.

    27. Re:OMFG by Wraithlyn · · Score: 2

      Yes, cherry-picking some rubes off the street, and getting them to play to the camera and act enthusiastic for a celebrity waving a gadget in their face, demonstrates incredible generalizations about the entire Apple userbase. Parrotting such rubbish actually says a lot more about YOUR mindset.

      Do you seriously believe the same trick couldn't be pulled off with other devices?

      Not one of them realized it was the old iPhone 4S.

      ERH MER GERD! NOT ONE!?

      The people who DID realize, were simply edited out. For all you know, it took 20 attempts for each "mark". (Although I doubt it, it's probably pretty easy for a celebrity to get random people on the street to accept what they're saying is true, and act excited for a chance to be on TV)

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    28. Re:OMFG by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Slide 18 from this slide deck is where you compare energy efficiency across processors. I see two major flaws in your methodology:
      1. You're using the TDP of each of the processors, instead of a measured power draw while running the benchmark. Are those other processors drawing their TDPs while running this benchmark? I doubt it. Usually the TDPs for any given processor are listed for some sort of power virus type test which is difficult if not impossible to hit running real code. It's possible that this benchmark hits the TDP of each of these processors, but I'd want proof of that, and generally I'd want measured power draws, not TDPs.
      2. More importantly, dynamic power scales quadratically with Voltage (P=C*V^2*F) (Wikipedia reference). If you run these processors at a slower clockspeed and lower voltage, their power draw drops by the V^2*F factor. The performance slows down because of the lower frequency, sure, but you get a squared factor by decreasing voltage, plus some power reduction due to lower frequency, while only having a linear slowdown factor due to the lower frequency. In other words, they can get into a much more efficient power band by not running at their highest voltage/highest frequency. They can run up at high voltage/high frequency because users want super-responsive computers and super-fast GPUs, but for doing long-running power efficiency comparisons, you'd never run them that way. You'd find the sweet spot on the V/F curve and run them there. Cortex-A9 is designed to live at a different point on the perf/power/V/F curve - it's effectively already down at a lower frequency/lower power/lower peak performance point, yet at its performance point it is very efficient. You'd need to sweep across a range of freq/voltages to find the sweet spot of each processor before you compare them like this.
    29. Re:OMFG by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

      They think the phone is faster because they're told it's faster, not because it is.

      Actually, I think it's faster because it is faster. Or did you miss the story where it was made clear that Apple's claim of the phone being twice as fast as the 4S was confirmed?

      And while your commentary on marketing is valid, the point _I_ was trying to make, which seemed to do its own woosh for you, is that you can find a collection of random people on the street that will inevitably say anything you want to further paint the image you want. Kimmell wanted to make consumers look stupid. You even backed it up with your "If that doesn't say something about the mindset of Apple's userbase, I don't know what does." But you could have done that with any phone and gotten a similar result. As Mercer has proven many a time, you can do that with damn near any subject and get enough people saying stupid crap. It has nothing to do with marketing or intelligence - it's simple human nature. Throw a camera in someone's face (which makes them nervous and puts them off-kilter) and tell them you're showing them the new iPhone (or anything else you want) and you're likely to get enough people who believe you to provide amusing comments allowing you to make a humorous highlight reel.

      So, to put it clearer, that says nothing about the mindset of the Apple userbase beyond the fact that they are normal humans.

    30. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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!

      It's not our fault. Apple lovers hate all these bullshit articles as much if not more than you do.

      I wish everyone would stop writing biased bullshit articles (whether pro or anti apple) and actually write something interesting about Apple.

      It's almost impossible to find a level headed article anymore, and forget about level headed discussion in the comments section.

    31. Re:OMFG by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      "Apple's iOS more complicated than Multics! Story at 11!"

    32. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funnily enough, it wasn't the Apple people who were screaming about this supposed 'new screw'. It was the Android/Windows/Linux crowds screaming how Apple was supposedly evil for attempting to stop users from opening their devices.

      The noise generated from Apple-related articles seems to mostly come from those people who are not Apple-centric.

    33. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we must read two entirely different slashdots.

      *exactly*

        AmberBlackCat is delusional.

    34. Re:OMFG by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Throw a camera in someone's face (which makes them nervous and puts them off-kilter) and tell them you're showing them the new iPhone (or anything else you want) and you're likely to get enough people who believe you to provide amusing comments allowing you to make a humorous highlight reel.

      Well, with a large enough sample size, anything that would normally be improbable becomes probable. That's statistics, not human nature.

      You even backed it up with your "If that doesn't say something about the mindset of Apple's userbase, I don't know what does."

      Apple users are somehow more vulnerable to marketing than non-apple users. At least one company thinks so. There's any number of articles out there detailing the "cult of personality" surrounding the late Steve Jobs, and I don't know why I have to lay it out for you that Apple became big because of marketing. In technical specifications, Apple products are usually inferior to other offerings in the market, and they cost more. You can argue it in circles all you want -- but there really is something different in the mindset of people who exhibit brand loyalty to Apple.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    35. Re:OMFG by radish · · Score: 1

      In technical specifications, Apple products are usually inferior to other offerings in the market, and they cost more. You can argue it in circles all you want -- but there really is something different in the mindset of people who exhibit brand loyalty to Apple.

      Or maybe, just maybe, technical specs aren't everything. In fact, to the average person on the street, technical specs are basically nothing. That doesn't mean all that's left is marketing - there's this little thing called "experience". The only company doing anything interesting in this space other than Apple is, ironically, Microsoft. Google haven't made a decent UX since their original search page so why anyone would trust them to build an entire OS is beyond me. I love Google as a company, I use their services plenty, but their interfaces blow - and for me a smartphone is 90% interface.

      I speak this as someone who has pre-ordered an iPhone 5, because I've been very happy with the other iPhones I've owned - but who doesn't have any other Apple products because, to be honest, I do care about price/performance for things like desktops & laptops.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    36. Re:OMFG by a0me · · Score: 2

      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.

      Jimmy Kimmel's show is not a news show. They do this kind of staged video all the time, because obviously interviewing people on the street saying "nope, it's not the iPhone 5" isn't that entertaining.

    37. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot has become a bastion of anti apple zealots, who will say anything they can about public enemy #1. It doesn't really matter how misleading the statements may be. "Apple patents rounded corners" seems to be a really popular one these days.

      Stop trying to use common sense or logic. It's like having a battle of wit with unarmed opponents, or trying to download gigabyte files using a 300 baud acoustic coupler. I used to come to Slashdot for insightful commentary. I stopped that practice quite some time ago.

    38. Re:OMFG by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      The emotional reaction is exactly what Apple advertises to. It's intentional to trigger that particular area of your brain.

      Presumably it triggers more "yay, Apple!" responses than "fuck Apple!" responses among the population in general, or they shouldn't be doing it. On discussion forums, it triggers an SI fuckload of both.

    39. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a bit skeptical that ARM CPUs are more energy efficient than Intel Sandy/Ivy bridge Xeons. If that were the case, that would be big news indeed. I like to see results for SPECpower (http://www.spec.org/benchmarks.html#power), pretty please.

    40. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it should be noted that this *wasn't* an iPad2, it was a jailbroken iPad2 (considering python was running at all). Even if it was unintentional, this story is just Apple hype conveniently concealed in "look how modern handheld devices fare against the beasts of yesteryear!". It would've been much easier (and probably would have yielded even more fantastic results) to develop these tests on a comparable device without any mention of the underlying OS.

    41. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who DID realize, were simply edited out.

      The point that we are trying to make is that there are just SO SO SO MANY idiots among Apple users.

      We do not want to prove that ALL Apple users are idiots (which we neither deny nor assert).

    42. Re:OMFG by rolfwind · · Score: 1

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

      Are you being forced to read the story? Is there a gun to your head if you don't click and just pass over the title?

      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!

      Says the person adding yet another comment to the story, thus making it seem more interesting than it is from a # of comments perspective:)

      It's fun watching nerds rage irrationally and taking it personally instead of ignoring it.

    43. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's also possible that some/all of those people were ACTORS. Most of them look just like real people. What am I saying? I'm sure a comedy show would never mislead the public like that.

    44. Re:OMFG by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Or maybe, just maybe, technical specs aren't everything. In fact, to the average person on the street, technical specs are basically nothing.

      Technical specs are marketing BS. Take a PC - what's the specs people concentrate on? GHz (faster==better), GB (RAM - more==better), GB (HD - more==better). So now we have a bunch of PCs with blazing fast CPUs clock-speed wise, lots of RAM, lots of HD, shit for graphics, shit for resolution (on laptops). The tech specs not talked about get crapped on while the tech specs people are told to care about get maxed. (And CPU GHz is so simplistic a benchmark, I'm sure Intel sold more CPUs based on clock speed than actual performance... say the Pentium 4...).

      Or take a digital camera - moar megapixies == bettar! Leading to phone cameras with 10/12/16/40 megapixels and pocket digital cameras. dSLRs though are slow to ramp up, being in that "high end photography" segment that most consumers don't get. Though, entry level dSLRs are seeing stuff like this. Meanwhile, useful specs like noise levels and such get ignored.

      Or take monitors and TV sets. Lower refresh speeds! More Hz! More brightness! More Contrast! Leading to sub-1ms refresh panels (using some "magical" measurement system), "240 class" TVs (that really only do 60/120Hz refresh), perma-noon style TV backlights, and million-to-1 contrast ratios for LCDs (using "dynamic" contrast ("local dimming") and other such picture-messing-up crap).

      That's the problem with tech specs - people are misled into thinking some measurement X is better, and manufacturers happily make X as big as they can - usually sacrificing other specs (who cares about graphics? who cares about LCD resolution?), or using quasi-scientific or better yet, proprietary measurement techniques.

      Most measured specs are bogus - using either techniques that boost it (which they don't say), "proprietary" or "scientific" measuring equipment (no calibration), or specs where the industry simply hasn't agreed on a standard testing regime nor meaning (e.g., "contrast" has no standard measrement protocol that every manufacturer follows...).

    45. Re:OMFG by Holladon · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure that the clips they selected for air were totally representative of the reactions they got from most people. The fact that some subset of people on the street is uninformed and unobservant is hardly good evidence that the Apple-fans subset of people can be fairly classified as similarly uninformed and unobservant. It's one thing to roll your eyes at the silly ceremony and media circus that accompany Apple releases. It's totally another to use your irritation with the attention Apple gets as a reason to snark on total strangers who happen to like Apple products.

    46. Re:OMFG by Holladon · · Score: 1

      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."

      This might be intentional on your part, but you ought to know that you're coming across like an unpopular high school student with a bad case of sour grapes. You want to hate Apple (and every other smartphone company) for labor practices or something, totally, have at it. That's a legitimate reason to criticize a company. Another legitimate reason to criticize would be if they made products designed/likely to break within a couple years so you'd have to buy a new one every so often (given that my old iPhone 3G has held up better than any phone I've ever had, I don't think this is a criticism you could level at Apple). Maybe you take issue with their taking advantage of overseas tax shelters to avoid paying their fair share of corporate taxes (like every big company does). Or let's say they donated huge sums of corporate money to some horrific political movement, like the Klan or something. Those are all reasonable bases on which to criticize a large business.

      NOT a reasonable basis: "I don't like that other people like them so much." You're not complaining that there's some other, worthier product that's being overlooked. You're not complaining that your company is forcing everyone to use iPhones. You're not complaining that oversaturated iPhone coverage is harming you in some way. You're just complaining that it's popular.... Sorry, but you're just being a whiner. Put on your big girl pants and get over it.

    47. Re:OMFG by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How do you know they didn't interview 10,000,000 people and discarded 99.9% of them because they said "that's an iPhone 4S." or "That looks and feels exactly like my iPhone 4S." They only show the "interesting" ones. Just like the crowd watching the fire, they'll always interview the stupidest looking person. It's more entertaining.

    48. Re:OMFG by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 0

      The Slashdot that I'm reading has somebody saying "Apple lovers must be stopped" "retarded articles" and "BS Apple stories" and doesn't get modded Flamebait. It gets a +5. My comment that Google is gaming this system gets modded Flamebait. I think it illustrates my point. And I think this allowing single companies to direct the moderation will be the death of Slashdot.

    49. Re:OMFG by Slash.ter · · Score: 1

      These are all good points. I (as in "I who wrote the paper and presented the slides") did measure power and for LINPACK you do hit TDP. See my other publications. And unfortunately, we don't get to choose voltage-frequency point neither does AMD, Intel, nor NVIDIA with such flexibility. Operating voltage starte at 5V and now it is at 1V. Silicon junction switches at 0.7V and the closer you get to 0.7V the less reliable the junction is (that's why it once was 5V). So you have about 0.3V max in terms of voltage. And frequency is capped at 4 GHz due to the voltage problem. So you have to live somewhere between 1 GHz and 4 GHz. Lookup Dennard scaling and its demise for details of voltage, frequency and area scaling. I only make presentations about iPad apps so don't know much about hardware ;-)

    50. Re:OMFG by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 1

      And unfortunately, we don't get to choose voltage-frequency point neither does AMD, Intel, nor NVIDIA with such flexibility.

      Sure they do: at least Intel and AMD CPUs have dynamic P-states which allow the processors to run at different voltage-frequency points. If you're relying on the OS to select a P-state, it will just select the fastest one once the CPU sees a high load, without considering energy efficiency. Did you look at running these tests at the minimum P-state, i.e. lowest voltage/frequency point? I'd imagine the clockspeed would be about 1/2 of its peak (so for a 3.2GHz CPU you'd be running at 1.6GHz) which should lead to about 1/2 the performance, but much lower power due to the reduced voltage/frequency. In fact, with these high-performance CPU designs, energy efficiency might be limited by Vmin, i.e. the lowest voltage you can possibly run the part.

  8. New from InGen, Inc. by Tr3vin · · Score: 1

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

  9. This just In! by Ziggitz · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
    1. Re:This just In! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait.. do computers are now better? What's going to be next? That they come with more than 640kB of memory?

  10. But... by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Does it run Linux?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:But... by rbrausse · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:But... by mikew03 · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:But... by fermion · · Score: 1
      Yes

      On a more serious note, the interest in this in terms of miniaturization and power optimization. The Cray was built for nuclear weapons testing. It was beyond the state of the art for the time. We are now seeing the state of the art in consumer toys, efficient use of electricity, materials, space.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No

      Darwin is built around XNU, a hybrid kernel that combines the Mach 3 microkernel, various elements of BSD (including the process model, network stack, and virtual file system),[5] and an object-oriented device driver API called I/O Kit.[6] The hybrid kernel design compromises between the flexibility of a microkernel and the performance of a monolithic kernel..

      Since when is any of that the Linux kernel?

    5. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, Darwin != Linux

  11. You lost me at Python by Brannon · · Score: 1

    > 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.

    1. Re:You lost me at Python by ericloewe · · Score: 2

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

  12. iPad 2 and a million other things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:iPad 2 and a million other things by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      The Cray 2 was a child's toy?

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

  13. Doesn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iron Sky, anybody?

    1. Re:Doesn't surprise me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are the other Laibach fan here...

  14. I knew the Cray-2 by mikew03 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I knew the Cray-2 by ichthus · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      --
      sig: sauer
    2. Re:I knew the Cray-2 by gander666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    3. Re:I knew the Cray-2 by mikew03 · · Score: 2

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

    4. Re:I knew the Cray-2 by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      ... 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!!)

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    5. Re:I knew the Cray-2 by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I did Hello World on a Cray XMP. But I had to walk half way across campus to pick up the printout of the results.

    6. Re:I knew the Cray-2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the story o' yesteryear. I never tire of these from the old farts I work with. Never ends. Now please regale me with stories of how you rented your phone handset from Ma Bell and the one time you found that hilarious bug on punch card #54. I can barely contain my enthusiasm.

    7. Re:I knew the Cray-2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day, a great deal sooner than you think, you will be one of the old guys you are disrespecting.

      Karma, baby!

      You get what you give.

  15. TDP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  16. Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  17. Cray Superior by puddingebola · · Score: 1

    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.

  18. What the headline giveth . . . by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Interesting

    . . . 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.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
    1. Re:What the headline giveth . . . by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      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?

    2. Re:What the headline giveth . . . by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      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?

    3. Re:What the headline giveth . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . 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 "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.

    4. Re:What the headline giveth . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.)

    5. Re:What the headline giveth . . . by WilliamBaughman · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:What the headline giveth . . . by WilliamBaughman · · Score: 1

      Update: Looking at David Kanter's site (graph 1 and graph 2) 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.

    7. Re:What the headline giveth . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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, then FOAD.)

    8. Re:What the headline giveth . . . by slew · · Score: 1

      ...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)...

    9. Re:What the headline giveth . . . by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      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.)

      RTFA. I made no estimations, and the "notions" are not mine. Are you suggesting that the y-axis on the graph from the conference is GFLOPS for the Cray but GFLOPS/W for the iPad? Perhaps it is. Again, I didn't make the slide, and TFA is ambiguous at best.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  19. Researcher = Jack Dongarra by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  20. Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  21. Ummm...wutt? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Ummm...wutt? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      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

    2. Re:Ummm...wutt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

  22. But... will it blend? by cpotoso · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will the cray2 blend as well as the ipad2?

    1. Re:But... will it blend? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      No. But the Cray has leather seats.

    2. Re:But... will it blend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:But... will it blend? by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 2

      Depends on how big a blender you have. The brochure 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 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.

    4. Re:But... will it blend? by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      Very nice! Thank you for the information!

  23. pfffffft by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

    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

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:pfffffft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:pfffffft by anss123 · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:pfffffft by scheme · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    4. Re:pfffffft by scheme · · Score: 1

      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.

      Wrong. There's always going to be steps where only a single thread of execution can run. Those steps will determine how much of a speed up parallelization will get you. Adding more processors will just result in more processors idling when those bottlenecks occur and if your processors are not fast enough at those bottlenecks, then it could be much better to get fewer more powerful processors so that bottlenecks are finished more quickly.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    5. Re:pfffffft by anss123 · · Score: 1

      LINPACK is highly parallel. I.e. why I stated "LINPACK like workloads".

      How useful LINPACK is to super computers isn't within my field of expertise, but if Arm is truly better on a performance per watt scale and some other constraint don't step in, then it does not matter how much faster a single chip is than the arm solution, as one can just add more arms (for LINPACK like workloads).

      I'm somewhat skeptical to that article, reads too much like an advertisement, but the results may still be significant for the super computer landscape.

  24. Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  25. Whop de do.. by nurb432 · · Score: 2

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

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  26. it is so much more than that!! by jsveiga · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!!

    1. Re:it is so much more than that!! by boarder8925 · · Score: 1

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

      Reminds me of an old-ish spoof of a 2005 iPod nano commercial, which spoof features the Macintosh Classic II.

  27. I'm disappointed by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

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

    What has Slashdot become?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I'm disappointed by moderators_are_w*nke · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
    2. Re:I'm disappointed by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      What has Slashdot become?

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

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  28. Cycles != results by Teun · · Score: 2
    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?

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Cycles != results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thats why steve jobs is burning in hell right now.

  29. NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

    1. Re:NOT! by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Apparently, Jack Dongara is smarter than you.

    2. Re:NOT! by godrik · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:NOT! by lowlymarine · · Score: 1

      According to ARM's documentation of the Cortex-A9 FPU it takes two cycles to perform one double-precision FMAC operation. 1 GHz * 2 cores / 2 cycles per operation = 1 GFLOP, assuming ideal conditions and zero overhead. In practical scenarios, 300-400 MFLOP is probably about right. And now that I think about it, the figure they list may already be for a dual-core, since Cortex-A9 was never intended to ship in a single-core configuration.

    4. Re:NOT! by tomuo · · Score: 1

      Processor clock speed doesn't equal sustained MFLOPage. As soon as the program counter jumps somewhere outside the instruction cache, you get hit with an eternity (in processor terms) delay waiting for the cache to get filled again by some algorithm that tries to predict where the Program execution will go next. Modern CPUs, both x86 and ARM types, rely on cache size to a huge degree. At the end of the day, the bigger cache size wins for real life problems, and that's a crucial spec that's hard to find for these vendor specific devices.

    5. Re:NOT! by godrik · · Score: 1

      You are right caches are important. I quoted theoretical peak. But here we are talking about dense linear algebra kernels. Matrix vector multiply for instance is a O(n^3) algorithm on O(n^2) memory. So overall you do more computation than memory transfer. With good caching techniques, tiling, software prefetching, you might be able to correct for it.

      That's what these benchmarking techniques are designed to do. find the optimal blocking at every cache level and register blocking and software prefetching policy.

    6. Re:NOT! by godrik · · Score: 1

      There are traces of single core cortex A9 on arm's website. But I don't know if there is one FPU or 2 FPUs. But I think there are two.

      The scenario here is not a practical one, it is LinPack which is a quite dense computation. Many architecture reaches 90% of peak performance on linpack.

      Also you are talking about double precision computation, I am not sure linpack is double precision, it might be single precision. (actually wikipedia confirms it is double precision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LINPACK_benchmarks)

      Some of these architectures (not sure about cortex a9) have a separate pipeline for the FPU and the ALU, allowing to perform integer operations and jumping logic in parallel to the floating point operations.

      Finally, as you said, cortex A9 can perform one 64 bit FMAC in a cycle. FMAC is fused add multiply, that is to say out = in1 + in2 * in3, so there are 2 Floating point operations performed. ( http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.dui0068b/Bcfbbjgf.html )

      In brief, if there is a single FPU, thanks to fused add multiply, peak performance is 2GFlop/s. If there are 2 FPUs, it is 4GFlop/s.

  30. the POWER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what's all that computing power used for?

    Facebook.

    1. Re:the POWER! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  31. Wow! Is it true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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?

  32. The Cray would hurt more ... by Wansu · · Score: 2

    ... if dropped on your foot.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    1. Re:The Cray would hurt more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Cray has nothing on a Nokia

  33. If that is equal to the iPhone 4S or 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  34. Congratulations to Cray by Dishwasha · · Score: 1

    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.

  35. Is this an elaborate joke? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

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

  36. For Science! by petteyg359 · · Score: 1

    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!

  37. remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by swschrad · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by radish · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      Oh - you mean like every JVM/CLR in the last I can't remember how long? Like you get in every Android device? Like all the decent JS engines out there?

      Now we could discuss the relative efficiencies of interpreted vs bytecode vs compiled vs whatever all day long (hint: it's more variable than it might at first seem), but I have a feeling you'd rather go back out and shout at the kids on your lawn.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    2. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No, he's talking about the common optimization technique of moving code around, hoping it will cause the compiler to create more efficient code. For example, you might try moving a function call outside of a loop, or try using instead of *2. Then you measure which one goes faster, and use that one. You aren't optimizing directly, you're helping the compiler produce better code.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Like all the decent JS engines out there?

      You mean like ALL the shitty JS engines that get faster:
      a) when you use pre-increment vs post-increment, and
      b) the fewer characters in the variable names you use the faster they execute?!

      i.e. Using this as a base ...
      http://codebase.es/test/copytest.htm

      Add:
      - - - 8< - - -
      function copy4() {
          var i = 0x4000-1, j = 0x4000-1, k = 0x8000;
          while (i--) dst[++j]=src[++k];
      }
      function copy5() {
          var d = dst, s = src;
          var i = 0x4000-1, j = 0x4000-1, k = 0x8000;
          while (i--) d[++j]=s[++k];
      }
      var t1=new Date();
      for (var i=0; i < 1000; i++) copy4();
      document.write('copy4: '+(new Date()-t1)+' ms. <br>');

      var t1=new Date();
      for (var i=0; i < 1000; i++) copy5();
      document.write('copy4: '+(new Date()-t1)+' ms. <br>');
      - - - 8< - - -

      With Firefox 15 copy4() is about 10 ms faster then copy2(), and copy5() is about 10 ms faster then copy4() ?!

      While Javascript is a fun toy language (especially with WebGL), its performance still sucks ass because of its stupid typeless "everything is an object" system.

    4. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      For a while there, I was going to respond saying you were clueless. But then I read your comment again, and realized you were comparing JavaScript to a supercomputer. Then I had a good laugh, a sip of beer, and wrote this. Keep on trollin'!

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    5. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When you pay real money per milisecond of processor time, you spend more time playing with your code. When there is no "cost" to bad code, bad code is rewarded. Oh, and Slashdot ate one of your numbers.

    6. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh dang it, I keep forgetting about special characters.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      No, he's talking about the common optimization technique of moving code around, hoping it will cause the compiler to create more efficient code. For example, you might try moving a function call outside of a loop, or try using instead of *2. Then you measure which one goes faster, and use that one. You aren't optimizing directly, you're helping the compiler produce better code.

      If simple things like that help, you aren't helping the compiler produce better code, you are using an outdated compiler.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    8. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh you naive fool.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Oh you naive fool.

      Says the guy who exchanges "*2" by "<<1" by hand in the hope that will fix the performance problem of his program.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    10. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If it does improve things, then I use it. If it doesn't, then I don't.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't have a clue about high performance Javascript nor WebGL doesn't mean the post is a troll; When you are trying to hit 60 frames/sec even 10 ms can make a difference when you have to resort to stupid language tricks like pre-increment to optimize a brain-dead language because the interpretor is stupid.

      Since obviously you don't know anything about high performance Javascript I would recommend you start here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minification_(programming)

      Maybe you could tell me why even Google is interested in high-performance Javascript; there implementation is called V8. From their homepage at https://developers.google.com/v8/

      "V8 is Google's open source high-performance JavaScript engine, written in C++ and used in Google Chrome, the open source browser from Google. It implements ECMAScript as specified in ECMA-262, 3rd edition, and runs on Windows XP and Vista, Mac OS X 10.5+, and Linux systems that use IA-32, ARM or MIPS processors. V8 can run standalone, or can be embedded into any C++ application. To see just how fast V8 is, look at the benchmarks. A good introduction to some of the core concepts that make V8 so fast can be found in the 2012 Google I/O "Breaking the JavaScript Speed Limit with V8" video (slides). "

      Instead of adding absolutely nothing of value to the conversation why don't you do something productive and learn how Javascript is implemented so you can see first hand how much overhead the implementation of Javascript has:
      http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/browse/trunk/src/

      Come back when you are interested in learning how to write fast JS; you might actually learn a thing or too.

    12. Re:remember the i486? whips the Cray-1 by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      You said it yourself, it's a brain-dead language with a stupid interpretor. Stop coding shit in it. Use C++ or C or whatever you like, anything but javascript.

      If your code will be slow in standard javascript, you should ask yourself: why does it have to run client-side? Does it have to if it runs 100x faster? And if it has to be client-side, why does it have to run inside the web browser? On smartphones, anything is "appified", even webpages for crying out loud. Why do people on the desktop side have this aversion to making an app when something has to be fast? Make an app, code it in C++ using available libraries, and you'll save yourself that month of tweaking javascript for speed.

      Car analogy: why spend $30,000 and a lot of time making a Honda Civic go fast, when you can buy a Corvette instead?

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
  38. kill the meme by swschrad · · Score: 1

    imagine a Beowulf cluster of nuclear submarine fire-control computers...

    imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...

    imagine a Beowulf cluster of fscks....

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:kill the meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Apple fanbois...

      (shivers)

  39. incomplete by swschrad · · Score: 1

    how many furlongs per fortnight did each perform?

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  40. Christ by OldSport · · Score: 2

    Guess what? Computing power has increased exponentially in the last three decades. If this surprises you you're an idiot. I mean, ten years ago I paid $2,000 for a Toshiba laptop with a whopping 1 GB of RAM and a 20G hard disk; now I can get a Tracfone with better specs than that.

    Slashdot sure seems to have its collective mouth wrapped tightly around the iSchlong lately.

  41. Is this a thing again? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    I remember during the 32 & 64 bit era a lot of people would mention console performance vs X-rays. Big deal, it's old hardware. Of course new stuff is more lots of power in a much smaller bit of kit.

  42. Re:My desktop computer is way more powerful than t by JohnSearle · · Score: 4, Informative

    And in other news, the Asus Transformer Prime is 4x as fast as the Cray. Android (NVIDIA Tegra 3 T30 1300 MHz (4 cores) ) vs Apple (Apple A5 (32nm) 1000 MHz (2 cores) )

    I hate how everything must be compared against Apple iProducts. I don't recall every comparisons of yesteryear being brand specific. I don't care if the iPhoneX is 2x as fast as iPhoneX-1, or the iProductY is 2x as fast as the Cray. Give me damn benchmarks or clock speed of current day standards, and not a commercial.

  43. Pretty stupid gag by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Jimmy Kimmel recently went out on the street 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

    Why would they? No-one has seen an iPhone 5, so they would be inclined to believe someone who said it was regardless of what you gave them. I didn't get the point of this at all, even as a joke it was just absurd.

    I mean, a guy with a camera crew shows up and hands you an object and says it is "X" and asks for thoughts. Are you going to disbelieve it's what they say it is?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Pretty stupid gag by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      The only saving grace of the sketch were the people who pulled out their iPhone 4s for comparison and began talking about how much faster, how much lighter, cooler, the thing was. Faster, well, new uncluttered phone, but still.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    2. Re:Pretty stupid gag by vux984 · · Score: 2

      I mean, a guy with a camera crew shows up and hands you an object and says it is "X" and asks for thoughts. Are you going to disbelieve it's what they say it is??

      Sure I'll probably believe its what they say it is, but that's not the really the point. Lets assume I beleive its an iphone 5:

      On the one hand If I already have a 4S in my own pocket, then I'm probably not going to gush about how this "5" is lighter than the one in my pocket. Nor gush about how much faster it is. Nor gush about how much thinner it is etc. Because it isn't.

      On the other hand if they hand me a 4S calling it a 5 and I am not particularly familiar with a 4S, then I might cheerfully say any number of complimentary things about it. But I wouldn't use relative adjectives like "lighter" or "faster" or "thinner" ... I would just remark that its very "light" or "fast" or "thin".

      But in what universe would I say its faster, lighter, and thinner than a 4S unless I already had a 4S to form some sort of basis for making those comparisons... and if I already had a 4S why on earth would I think an identical object is faster, lighter, and thinner?

      You give them something that they assume is faster, lighter, and thinner than the 4S they currently have, and they'll agree that it is despite their own senses not beign able to tell them apart.

      The emperor has no clothes, but we assume he can't possibly be naked and therefore compliment his new suit our own eyes tell us doesn't exist.

    3. Re:Pretty stupid gag by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Just the power of suggestion alone could easily make you think the "new" phone in your hand was lighter than the one you already had. Also, if they are using a phone with a case they may well have forgotten just how thin the phone is without a case...

      Basically when someone shoves a camera in your face it's easy to simply spout out what they are looking to hear. My way of anecdote, long ago I saw Independance Day on opening day, and when I got out of the theater I was grabbed by a news reporter and asked how I liked it. On camera, I gave a glowing review of the movie... not ten minutes later I was wondering just why the heck I said all those things. It's just really easy for your brain to let go on camera.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  44. People are more marketing savvy than you think by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    They think the phone is faster because they're told it's faster, not because it is.

    The new phone is actually faster, in many measurable ways. I assure you that when I get the newer phone I will be able to tell.

    My point was that people who buy Apple products buy them because of brand identity

    People buy things repeatedly because they liked how the older one worked and they'd like to repeat the same positive ownership experience with an updated model that has some improvement they like. It's about utility of products produced by a company and the customers trust level with a given company.

    So your post seems to think of "Brand identity" as something to sneer at. But why is it bad for a person who had a good experience to think they can repeat it from the same source? That seems like a very reasonable assumption.

    they believe it's because it's better, faster, whatever

    But when it is in fact better and faster then why is it a problem that they believe it to be so? Shouldn't believing true things be desirable?

    it's the result of marketing in general.

    In general, I agree with some of the points you are making about marketing. They are trying to tell you something has some qualities or attributes you crave; sometimes they mislead.

    But then you are trying to paint Apple users as misled and unable to discern truth from reality. In fact Apple as a company is better than most at giving you real information in marketing; showing actual apps being used, giving you realistic battery life figures.

    Apple users on the other had are no different than anyone else, they are bombarded by marketing messages from all over, not just Apple. Again going back to the general case, people everywhere, not just Apple users but including them , are FAR more wary of marketing messages now than they have been in the past. And that is why people are happy to buy from the same company again when they have a good experience - not because of any marketing but because they don't have to RELY on marketing to help discover if a product is really good or not. That's not just true of Apple, it's just that Apple has had a better track record than a lot of companies in repeatedly making products that work well for most people who buy them.

    It's also why people generally go to the same grocery stores and restaurants all the time. When a place does something you like, it's a lot less work to simply rely on them to provide a good experience going forward.

    In the end misleading marketing has exactly the opposite effect intended; you draw a few more people in to start with but then when word of mouth gets around they are misleading, sales drop like a stone.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  45. Newsworthy? by neurosine · · Score: 1

    New tech catches up to 20 year old tech! More at 11....

  46. Nothing impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were affordable personal computers that were faster than a Cray 2 in the late 1990s.

  47. More Apple... by malv · · Score: 0

    More Apple horseshit advertising. If Apples IPad 2 is one Cray-2 supercomputer, then my desktop is 3 of them.

    What is this garbage?

  48. Not a fair comparison by cvtan · · Score: 1

    I think the Cray 2 could print something and it anticipated the future by not having USB or an SD card slot.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  49. oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes and shit smells

  50. Coolness factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a logic board for a Cray 2. It is 8 PCB's sandwiched in a stack that is a little over an inch thick and cooled by liquid Fluorinert.

    It is still a marvel to look at and handle, and arguably cooler than an Ipad 2; even without Fluorinert.

  51. Three things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While the iPad 2 is as powerful as Cray 2 in a certain benchmark (frankly I would've assumed it wouldn't have even taken an iPad 2, underestimated the Cray 2), the talk seemed to be about some sophisticated algorithmic tricks. Whether it's making more efficient use of iPad 2 resources than algorithms of the time made use of Cray 2 (a *lot* of blood sweat and tears have gone into BLAS implementations over the years) is unclear. It may be the case that iPad 2 efficiently used is as performant as Cray 2 inefficiently used based on more limited research of the day.

    For another, while the ARM *chip* itself may get more performance per watt, that doesn't particularly spell the end of more potent solutions. The problem is the more elements you have to coordinate, the more and more costly trying to get them communicating effectively, both in up front cost and in operational cost. 300 arm chips might edge out a single AMD firestream, but it's going to be more expensive and the overall solution is guaranteed to use more power in aggregate than a powerstream to drive the requisite interconnect and such.

    Finally, again we have the flaw many of these works run afoul of: do *not* use TDP to make assessment of power efficiency. TDP has a very loose coordination with real-world power utilization. You *have* to be measuring the power if you are measuring performance. This one isn't as bad as the last phoronix crap that pulled the BS of comparing one products TDP to another's *measured* performance, but it's still not that productive.

  52. OK..... by Cute+and+Cuddly · · Score: 0

    So an ipad is as powerful as a 30 year old computer, big deal......

  53. Faster than original 20 punch card readers? by destruk · · Score: 0

    The Cray 2 was really fast, but 20 Punch Card readers in serial would be faster - is it faster than that? How about is the iPod 2 faster than 300 people with pencils and paper with each one writing a letter of the alphabet?

  54. An Inconvenient Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMD's CFO resigned today.

    Stock plunge following news of departure.

    The results of the study are a wake-up call and and monumentally insurmountable
    embarrassment for the so-called 'Super Computing' Community.

    Perestroika rears its gnarled and ugly head in the hallowed halls of 'Super Computing".

    The Soviet of U.S.A. Super Computing will be forever changed from this day forward.

    Who of the 'Super Computing Czars' will fall next?

    Blood and body parts in the city streets of U.S.A. for sure.

    8D

  55. Link Bait! by jampola · · Score: 2

    Otherwise referred to as "Link Bait"!!

  56. U.S.A. Soviet Supercomputing Strikes Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Intelligencia Soviet U.S.A. Supercomputing are quickly striking back at the 'Embarrassment".

    The researcher and University are to be quickly ....Quarantined ... and Suffocated.

    Money is flowing ... contracts for killing written ... a 'Night Falls' ... upon U.S.A. ... This is abhorrent.

    Shame on U.S.A.

    ||

  57. Re:My desktop computer is way more powerful than t by sootman · · Score: 2

    Maybe, in order to make news relevant to readers, they chose to compare to something most readers are familiar with? That's pretty much the point of analogies and comparisons.

    Why do you think we ever talked about storage in terms of "Libraries of Congress" in the first place?

    > Give me damn benchmarks or clock speed of
    > current day standards, and not a commercial.

    RTMFA! It has numbers. OF COURSE the summary has the appealing bits. Welcome to journalism. Welcome to the Internet. Welcome to the human species.

    More info from a year ago: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/the-ipad-in-your-hand-as-fast-as-a-supercomputer-of-yore/

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  58. Some of that might be reasonalbe by otterpop81 · · Score: 1

    Two things come to mind:

    1. Cleanliness of the phone. Phones get dirty in pockets. Screens get smudged with grease. Pocket lint gets inside screen protectors and cases. Ever clean your phone and then love how "new" it feels? Ever take off a beat-up old case?

    2. Age of the OS. I don't have an iPhone, but it stands to reason that a fresh install will be more responsive than the one in your pocket that's been collecting pictures, emails, etc for a year. I know my old Android phone (HTC Magic with 2.2) behaves like this.

  59. Change the title by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    To "Motorola droid 10x faster than new iPad AND Cray-2"

  60. and yet... by LodCrappo · · Score: 1

    Owners of a Cray can run any software they like without obtaining permission from it's manufacturer.

    Advantage: Cray

    --
    -Lod
  61. It's about the right metric by Arker · · Score: 1

    When you are talking about a battery operated device, performance per watt isnt a bad choice of metric.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  62. Such a waste of money by Wadlez925 · · Score: 1

    Why didn't those idiots just buy an iPad 2 then? Just goes to show how much money people will waste to be anti apple

    1. Re:Such a waste of money by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      i assume you mean in the performance per watt department

      and to that, well when they come out with a 3.8ghz 8 core ipad that beats the performance to COST ratio then we will have a argument

      fact is who cares if your wasting watts, when you can buy 6x the computer power for 1/3 the price

      ya know, when work has to be done...

  63. Please mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone please mod post by AcidPenguin9873 up.
    It actually has technical content and makes a valid point!

  64. BFD by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    it doesnt have nearly as much wirewrap as a Cray 2, thus making it lame

    call us when you have an army of workers individually wiring up each bank of gates with a screw driver and a bit of wire ... IN PRODUCTION

  65. Re:My desktop computer is way more powerful than t by rst123 · · Score: 1

    And in other news, the Asus Transformer Prime is 4x as fast as the Cray.

    It's much more impressive to compare a common toy of today to a serious workhorse of yesterday.

  66. Missed the end by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Turned out my reply made exactly the same point you did at the end of your post. I totally agree with you.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  67. iPad - a cheap supercomputer :) by unixisc · · Score: 1

    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.

    Suddenly, the iPad 2 (or a high end iPhone 5) doesn't seem all that expensive

  68. Re:My desktop computer is way more powerful than t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe, in order to make news relevant to readers, they chose to compare to something most readers are familiar with? That's pretty much the point of analogies and comparisons.

    Or maybe it's what we call "Marketing".

    Why do you think we ever talked about storage in terms of "Libraries of Congress" in the first place?

    Because it's funny.

    More info from a year ago:

    Which again begs the question of why we're seeing this now, right when Apple is launching a new product. Oh, I just answered my own rhetorical question.

  69. My first calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first calculator was a Texas Instruments Ti30. It was millions of times as powerful as an abacus from 3000 years ago. I'm always amazed by these "My wristwatch is so much faster than a sundial from 5000 years ago (I have to get my watch fixed, its running fast obviously). They don't ever compare their crappy hardware (of today) with a supercomputer (of today). So lets compare your Apple tablet against the Texas Advanced Computing Centre's newest machine with thousands of processors against your thing. What? It wipes the floor with your thing? This is the point. Its very convenient to compare apples with old oranges, but its rubbish. In 10 years I can take my wristwatch, and If I don't get it fixed, it will still be faster than your thing now.

  70. Price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the iPad 2 is more powerful but it's probably also more expensive.

  71. Of course! It was even demonstrated on "Iron Sky"! by hotfireball · · Score: 1

    Of course! It was even demonstrated in "Iron Sky" movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/

    *hiding*

  72. Re:My desktop computer is way more powerful than t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chill. It is compared to the iPad in exactly the same sense of "The smartest ancient sumerian is dumber than a patient that underwent frontal lobotomy".

    Haha. Get it? Frontal lobotomy! The iPad!

  73. So what? A more impressive example... by AC-x · · Score: 1

    ... of how far we've come is that a £250 graphic card (eg. OpenCL on a Radeon 5870) which can compute at 2.72 TFLOP/s would have been the world's fastest super computer in 1999.

  74. BS Apple fluff is Phoronix's new gig? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    BS Apple fluff is Phoronix's new gig, now that Steam is actually coming to Linux?

  75. All Apple Hatred Aside... by Brewster+Jennings · · Score: 1

    I still think it's pretty awesome that you can carry a device with the equivalent processing power of a device in 1979 that was so massive it had its own bench.

    I wouldn't mind seeing more benchmarks of computational power/storage, etc. For instance, how much magnetic storage was there forty years ago? I have 13.6 tb on my home media server, and it sure would be nice to say that I have more storage than the entire world did in 1970...

  76. Re:My desktop computer is way more powerful than t by dargaud · · Score: 1

    Well, for a decade, everything was compared to the original IBM PC XT.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  77. Dumbest news posting ever by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    Apple is the catalyst that will begin (or has already begun) the Stupocalypse where society becomes increasingly impressed and influenced by trivial nonsense to its ultimate demise.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  78. Jelly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'all just hatin' ona rich guy.

  79. Re:My desktop computer is way more powerful than t by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    And in other news, the Asus Transformer Prime is 4x as fast as the Cray. Android (NVIDIA Tegra 3 T30 1300 MHz (4 cores) ) vs Apple (Apple A5 (32nm) 1000 MHz (2 cores) )

    I hate how everything must be compared against Apple iProducts. I don't recall every comparisons of yesteryear being brand specific.

    Well, then you have a memory like a sieve. Comparisons were always to something well known to the audience addressed - and judging by sales, even most Fandroids assume "Asus Transformer Prime" is an Autobot.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  80. Re:My desktop computer is way more powerful than t by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Maybe, in order to make news relevant to readers, they chose to compare to something most readers are familiar with? That's pretty much the point of analogies and comparisons.

    Or maybe it's what we call "Marketing".

    Yeah, I'm sure Apple paid for that research. Which wasn't about comparing an iPad to a Cray BTW.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.