I just wanted to point out that is not an apples to apples comparison, and that such a comparison is not fair to either machine.
For that matter, the number for the IBM machine is only a subset of BlueGene/L so then why not use the 360 TFlop projected performance of BlueGene/L as the comparison point?
The 65 TFlop for the SX-8 is only an estimate while the 36 TFlop for BlueGene/L was real performance. So it is not certain that SX-8 will be faster than Blue Gene/L
What I do not understand is why all their sub-1000 dollar models have built in mointors. I would love to see a powermac without a built in monitor in the sub-1000 dollar range i.e. an e-mac without the built in monitor.
The yield drops roughly quadratically with area of the chip. So, if the L2 cache occupies 50% of the chip and we want to double the cache size, the yield would drop to roughly 44% of the original yield. To make up for this the price would have to more than double and I do not believe that most people buying desktops are willing to accept that.
But Intel has the financial muscle to take the time to make sure that Itanium will suceed. They seem to be willing to take the time required for developing and promoting the platform till it becomes a market success.
Slashdot Mirror
I just wanted to point out that is not an apples to apples comparison, and that such a comparison is not fair to either machine. For that matter, the number for the IBM machine is only a subset of BlueGene/L so then why not use the 360 TFlop projected performance of BlueGene/L as the comparison point?
The 65 TFlop for the SX-8 is only an estimate while the 36 TFlop for BlueGene/L was real performance. So it is not certain that SX-8 will be faster than Blue Gene/L
Reapeat after me:
G3 is made by IBM (ten times)
What I do not understand is why all their sub-1000 dollar models have built in mointors. I would love to see a powermac without a built in monitor in the sub-1000 dollar range i.e. an e-mac without the built in monitor.
I do hope you meant a decreasing S/N ratio. Because if increasing the S/N ratio was a problem then .....
The yield drops roughly quadratically with area of the chip. So, if the L2 cache occupies 50% of the chip and we want to double the cache size, the yield would drop to roughly 44% of the original yield. To make up for this the price would have to more than double and I do not believe that most people buying desktops are willing to accept that.
But Intel has the financial muscle to take the time to make sure that Itanium will suceed. They seem to be willing to take the time required for developing and promoting the platform till it becomes a market success.