Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!apple.com!desnoyer
From: desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: The Killer Micro From Hell
Message-ID: <5983@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 3 Jan 90 18:55:48 GMT
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 27
References:<158@csinc.UUCP> <787@stat.fsu.edu> <42701@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <788@stat.fsu.edu> <42737@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <789@stat.fsu.edu> <34030@mips.mips.COM> <791@stat.fsu.edu> <42793@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>

Just a few thoughts on this ongoing debate -

  Eugene Brooks is claiming that the R6000 is (probably) faster than any 
other computer for ONE specific simulation that he runs. He describes this 
as a packet-switched network simulation, almost completely scalar. 

Claims that {supercomputer X} runs {FP app Y} faster don't alter this 
claim. 

Claims that {super X} has much more memory or much more I/O bandwidth than 
the R6000 are probably irrelevant as well, as event-driven simulations (I 
assume a PSN simulator would be event-driven) may not need the amounts of 
memory and I/O that other types of simulations require.

[Gross generalization. However, consider that in many scientific codes - 
e.g. weather simulations - you can increase the simulated detail, and 
hence accuracy and memory requirements, by decreasing the grid size. To do 
the equivalent with an event-driven simulation may require describing the 
finer detail yourself in code.]

In other words, Eugene may not be comparing apples to oranges; however, he 
is discussing the merits of his apple in a conference full of orange 
growers :-)

                                      Peter Desnoyers
                                      Apple ATG
                                      (408) 974-4469