Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!llnl!physics.llnl.gov!brooks
From: brooks@physics.llnl.gov (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: CDC 6600 and TI ASC
Message-ID: <779@llnl.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 11 Mar 91 01:51:17 GMT
References: <45252@ut-emx.uucp> <1991Mar7.215545.430@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@llnl.LLNL.GOV
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 12

In article <1991Mar7.215545.430@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Assuming that you have confused the 6600 (successful) with the Star 100
>(failure), the most basic reason why the Star and the ASC failed was that
>they focussed on long-vector performance and ignored scalar performance,
>on the theory that everything would vectorize extremely well.  The Cray 1
>succeeded where they failed because it was a blazing-fast *scalar* machine
>first and an even-faster vector machine second.
This is the correct viewpoint.  One should also take note of the fact that
the fastest scalar processors these days are Killer Micros, and they do it
an incredibly small fraction of Cray's price for a CPU.

	No one will survive the Attack of the Killer Micros!