Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!brl-adm!brl-sem!ron
From: ron@brl-sem.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Hypercubes (place in life)
Message-ID: <660@brl-sem.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 27-Feb-87 13:47:44 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-sem.660
Posted: Fri Feb 27 13:47:44 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Mar-87 09:49:09 EST
References: <5699@amdahl.UUCP> <loral.1379> <1210@ogcvax.UUCP> <ames.362> <1216@ogcvax.UUCP>
Organization: Electronic Brain Research Lab
Lines: 8

In article <1216@ogcvax.UUCP>, pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) writes:
> Agreed, the iPSC is not intended to compete with the Cray - at ~1 Mflop per
> 32 node tower, it hasn't near the horsepower of a Cray.  Crays are especially
> good at problems which are vectorizable and require huge amounts of memory.
> The iPSC is not.  (However, just try to pick up a Cray for under $200,000.)
Granted ~1 MFlop per tower is not even rivaling a good mini these days.
The nodes in the iPSC are entirely underwelming.  This is not a condemnation
of hypercubes in general, just the Intel one.