Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Applications for consuming processor power
Message-ID: <8866@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: Fri, 19-Jun-87 21:14:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.8866
Posted: Fri Jun 19 21:14:11 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 04:01:29 EDT
References: <8222@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 61
In-reply-to: chuck@amdahl.amdahl.com's message of 9 Jun 87 04:00:33 GMT

Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix)



From: chuck@amdahl.amdahl.com (Charles Simmons)
>A couple months ago, the subject of processing power came up.  Someone asked
>if we really needed all the processing power that should be at our disposal
>in a few years.  He suggested that software to use the processing power did
>not exist and potentially would not exist.  Someone else suggested that
>graphics would consume all the processing power we were capable of producing.
>This argument was countered by suggesting that processing power was a
>small marketing niche.

I was the contentious party and I think you've missed my views by about
10 degrees (in your own favor.)

My argument is that too much attention seems to be placed upon raw
processing power and not enough on what exactly the bulk of the users
will do with a 100MIPs micro. Raw horsepower is an oversimplification
and an easy to understand goal (hence, easy to sell to management.)

>I would like to present arguments that suggest graphics applications are
>far more than a marketing niche.  I recently had the opportunity to view
>a number of video tapes of animation sequences produced on computers.  Many
>of these videos are produced on machines like the Cray, and, it is estimated,
>take not hours, days, or even weeks, but whole months to produce.  So the
>software for the applications I will describe below exist today, and they
>consume immense amounts of processor time.  This suggests that faster
>processors will remain a necessity for a very long time to come.

And thus you fall into the black hole.

I have never contended that no one needs the extremes of horsepower
people are talking about in the near future, just that most people
won't if we don't start thinking deeply about what we are going to do
with that horsepower right now.

Of course the sort of folks who buy Crays (and even less) today will
mostly sop up every bit of horsepower they are given, no argument.
When Ken Wilson (as related by Bill Joy) says that he needs a 1000X
improvement over the fastest currently available problems just to
begin working on some problems he has defined, I don't doubt him for a
second. I don't doubt he and people like him will need 1000X that when
his current dream is realized. High end science is like that, many of
their problems have n^3 or worse growth patterns and right now they
can only work on tiny examples, they know exactly where they are going
and what they need (well, they know enough.)

I was referring more to the 100MIPs (or more, or less, pick your own
level of skepticism) workstation which seems nearly realizable.

I am simply worried about our priorities.

Similarly, you fall into another black hole pre-supposing all this
wonderful software that might/should someday exist to justify the
iron, tho not seriously (actually, most of your examples were pretty
good, but there's some basis for skepticism.)

I'd be more comfortable if it were running slowly today, or soon, than
believe that it will someday be available so we should just go ahead
and spend our resources on the iron to put under it (Emperor's New
Clothes?  Chicken Little? One of these must be apt.)

	-Barry Shein, Boston University