The information provided in the article doesn't really show how good this processor is. Comparing the speed of execution with 1970 makes it really jeopardize to understand clear details. But definitely IBM put a lot of money into it and we just need to wait and see for more technical details regarding the processor and its performance. Is there any other processor with dense DRAM populated on the processor chip just like this. This is the one point sounds interesting ...
I would love to see the performance and the benchmarking results of the server made up of using this processor, it would be giving remarkable performance provided OS is being able to take the power of the CPU.
Completely agree. I had the same reaction when I saw the 50 billion instructions per second figure. Actually, even the 50 billion instructions per second per processor is not that impressive by today's Intel microprocessor standards. Unless we see real benchmark results, we can't say much....
I looked it up - the 50 billion does refer to a single processor, so 96 of them would be approx 5 trillion. I really hate that kind of useless comparison, which is almost as bad as tabloids measuring power by the number of cups of coffee that can be boiled by a given generator.
Is this a joke?
"... capable of executing roughly 17,000 times more instructions per second than the most advanced system available in 1970, according to the company."
"...capable of 50 billion instructions per second, powered by 96 microprocessors..."
The numbers are ludicrous.
Blog Doing Math in FPGAs Tom Burke 2 comments For a recent project, I explored doing "real" (that is, non-integer) math on a Spartan 3 FPGA. FPGAs, by their nature, do integer math. That is, there's no floating-point ...