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