Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!think!husc6!necntc!encore!fay
From: fay@encore.UUCP (Peter Fay)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Hypercubes (place in life)
Message-ID: <1150@encore.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Mar-87 12:39:03 EST
Article-I.D.: encore.1150
Posted: Wed Mar 18 12:39:03 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Mar-87 01:06:43 EST
References: <362@ames.UUCP> <3810018@nucsrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: fay@encore.UUCP (Peter Fay)
Organization: Encore Computer Corp., Wellesley Hills, MA
Lines: 31

In article <3810018@nucsrl.UUCP> ram@nucsrl.UUCP (Raman Renu) writes:
>
> Fay wrote:
>
>>The cost benefits are incredible when one realizes that these programs
>>actually get better turn-around time on a $12,000 hypercube than a
>				                  ^
>						  +- where did a '0' go.
>    Last time I heard (yesterday somebody at Argonne told me) it was
>    125000 for a d4 machine (d-dimension & 4 is 4).  That price is without
>    the vector processors in them.  Could somebody from Intel Clarify.


I wasn't refering to Intel's hypercube. In fact I beleive I said Intel's
wasn't the greatest implementation. My rough pricing came from a cube
configuration from Ncube Corp.'s boards for a total of 16 nodes. (The
exact $ price is from memory - it may have gone down).

My only 'real' comparison of cubes was at the ICPP conference
last summer, viewing both the Intel and Ncube running the same 
Mandelbrot program (what else? ). The Ncube was (very roughly) ten times
faster. The Intel people explained this by saying their machine was
still 'experimental', while Ncube's was a commercial product.

Maybe that's why Ncube's is being used in commercial applications.


			- peter fay


{linus,talcott,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,necis,compass}!encore!fay