Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!oliveb!ames!pioneer!lamaster
From: lamaster@pioneer.arpa (Hugh LaMaster)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Power vs Number of Circuits (was Re: Cray Research walkout)
Message-ID: <2934@ames.arpa>
Date: Wed, 30-Sep-87 13:32:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.2934
Posted: Wed Sep 30 13:32:06 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Oct-87 21:35:23 EDT
References: <622@winchester.UUCP> <2083@sfsup.UUCP> <954@edge.UUCP> <5270@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1449@unc.cs.unc.edu>
Sender: usenet@ames.arpa
Reply-To: lamaster@ames.UUCP (Hugh LaMaster)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 27

In article <1449@unc.cs.unc.edu> davis@unc.cs.unc.edu (Mark Davis) writes:

>hungry pad drivers.  I suspect Cray's conservative approach to
>implementation hardware is more responsible for the selection of
>multi-chip cpu's than cooling considerations.

Actually, cooling considerations have ALWAYS been one of the primary tradeoffs
in supercomputer design.  Seymour Cray is not necessarily the world's best
"architect", but he sure has been the best at packaging and plumbing.  If you
don't believe it, ask some CDC engineers how much fun they had in trying to
package the original STAR without him.  Or why his machines are always
smaller, and have faster clocks, than other similar complexity (gate count,
etc.) machines from other designers.  Current Cray technology is a 250MHz
processor.  Try clocking your 68020 or MIPS machine at that speed and see how
long it takes to melt.






  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP {topaz,lll-crg,ucbvax}!
  NASA Ames Research Center                ames!pioneer!lamaster
  Moffett Field, CA 94035    ARPA lamaster@ames-pioneer.arpa
  Phone:  (415)694-6117      ARPA lamaster@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov

(Disclaimer: "All opinions solely the author's responsibility")