Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.arch Subject: Re: Re: Caltech's Cosmic Cube Message-ID: <21294@lanl.ARPA> Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 17:30:14 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.21294 Posted: Fri Feb 8 17:30:14 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Feb-85 04:42:06 EST References: <333@oakhill.UUCP> Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 23 While I agree with most of what this original poster said, I think the following is somewhat in error: > Even if the cube > had an array of 64 8086/8087 pairs its power would only be about one tenth > that of a CRAY. (Cost wise though, 600 8086/8087 pairs would only run about > 200 grand - substantially cheaper than the CRAY.) The cost of such a system would be MUCH hihger in order to make back research costs, pay for the labor that assembles the machine (which must be a nightmare), as well as the cost of memory (less than several million words would be inadequate for a machine of such projected power). A way to interface so many processors to memory efficiently has yet to be found and would add to the expense of the implementation. Quoted costs of the Hypercube project itself have ignored labor (they get grad students and researchers themselves to do it, and their salaries are figured seperately), they ignore parts (all of which are being donated for the project), and they ignore sales, distribution, etc. All of which would be reuired to make a commercial Hypercube feasible. J. Giles