I found this chart comparing MFLOPS:
http://pages.experts-exchange.com/proce ... -compared/
According to this, the original iPhone was slightly faster than a Cray-1, and an iPhone 6 is about 15 times faster than the first iPhone. The Tianhe-2 super-computer is almost 100 million times as fast as the Cray-1, provided that I got all the zeroes right.
How fast was the Cray?
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:27 pm
- Location: Sweden
- Full name: Patrik Karlsson
-
- Posts: 3707
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:10 pm
Re: How fast was the Cray?
I wonder what ELO rating the engine that won would have today. Would it be able to take on SF on an iwatch?
-
- Posts: 1080
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:55 pm
- Location: USA/Minnesota
- Full name: Leo Anger
Re: How fast was the Cray?
I like that picture. I am sure "the boys" have a lot of nostalgia with that picture.
Advanced Micro Devices fan.
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: How fast was the Cray?
Actually Cray eventually went to normal DRAM. The difference was (a) word length, and that EVERY part of the system was pipelined.Vinvin wrote:That was a reason for the high price of this machines : memory !hgm wrote:...
The Cray had wonderful memory bandwidth, and could stream 64-bit data from and to memory at the clock speed of the CPU. Modern CPUs can only do that from their (tiny) level 1 cache.
Waiting for MRAM ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetore ... ess_memory ) on PCs : 2 ns access time !
IE if you wanted to compute this:
For (i=0;i<1000000;i++)
x = a*b+c
You could produce one x per clock cycle, which included reading all the crap from memory and writing x back. Can't do that even today on the PC. It gave an effective memory access/cycle time of whatever the CPU ran at with ZERO waiting after start-up.
The other claim to fame was the fully connected cross-bar to connect memory banks to CPUs to minimize/eliminate bank conflicts for vector operations... And this machine was fully SMP, no NUMA to be found.
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: How fast was the Cray?
Come on, iWatch CPU is the level of that of a weak modern smartphone, in other words, stronger than Cray-1. Software wise, at least 500 ELO points difference.M ANSARI wrote:I wonder what ELO rating the engine that won would have today. Would it be able to take on SF on an iwatch?
-
- Posts: 1610
- Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:28 pm
- Location: USA
Re: How fast was the Cray?
heeheebob wrote:That photo was taken at the end of the 1983 WCCC event in NYC. We were, as I said, running on the Cray XMP prototype which was an 8ns machine with two cpus. In 1984 we won the ACM event running on the next version of this, the XMP-4 with 4 cpus. The YMP was the machine we used to win the 1986 WCCC event in Cologne, it had 8 cpus and a 6ns clock speed.Laskos wrote:IIRC Cray Y-MP appeared in 1988 or so. The OP picture is from 1984, and I assumed they used Cray-1M or similar with 80MHz.hgm wrote:The one I calculated on (Cray Y-MP) was double that (167 MHz).
BTW THESE numbers I recall quite well. For obvious reasons.
"Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." (Dune - 1984)
Lonnie
Lonnie
-
- Posts: 5228
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:40 am
- Full name: Vincent Lejeune
Re: How fast was the Cray?
bob wrote:Actually Cray eventually went to normal DRAM. The difference was (a) word length, and that EVERY part of the system was pipelined.Vinvin wrote:That was a reason for the high price of this machines : memory !hgm wrote:...
The Cray had wonderful memory bandwidth, and could stream 64-bit data from and to memory at the clock speed of the CPU. Modern CPUs can only do that from their (tiny) level 1 cache.
Waiting for MRAM ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetore ... ess_memory ) on PCs : 2 ns access time !
IE if you wanted to compute this:
For (i=0;i<1000000;i++)
x = a*b+c
You could produce one x per clock cycle, which included reading all the crap from memory and writing x back. Can't do that even today on the PC. It gave an effective memory access/cycle time of whatever the CPU ran at with ZERO waiting after start-up.
The other claim to fame was the fully connected cross-bar to connect memory banks to CPUs to minimize/eliminate bank conflicts for vector operations... And this machine was fully SMP, no NUMA to be found.
Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_Y-MP , I read
Main memory comprised 128, 256 or 512 MB of SRAM.
...
The Y-MP M90 was a large-memory variant of the Y-MP Model E introduced in 1992. This replaced the SRAM of the Y-MP with up to 32 GB of slower, but physically smaller DRAM devices.
SRAM is way more expensive than DRAM.
-
- Posts: 2555
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:00 pm
- Location: Czech Republic
- Full name: Martin Sedlak
Re: How fast was the Cray?
OT: That chart has some flaws, 2 MFLOPS on Atari 2600?! Give me a break
1MHz 6502 (no FPU), 2 cycles minimum per instruction...
-
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:27 pm
- Location: Sweden
- Full name: Patrik Karlsson
Re: How fast was the Cray?
Yes, that is obviously way off. And no need to use math either, you just have to look at it.mar wrote:OT: That chart has some flaws, 2 MFLOPS on Atari 2600?! Give me a break
1MHz 6502 (no FPU), 2 cycles minimum per instruction...
-
- Posts: 5228
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:40 am
- Full name: Vincent Lejeune
Re: How fast was the Cray?
I second that, the 8087 was way faster than 8086 in math and the 8086 was way faster than 6502 in math.elpapa wrote:Yes, that is obviously way off. And no need to use math either, you just have to look at it.mar wrote:OT: That chart has some flaws, 2 MFLOPS on Atari 2600?! Give me a break
1MHz 6502 (no FPU), 2 cycles minimum per instruction...
"The 8087 could perform about 50,000 FLOPS" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8087
I estimate the 6502 did less than 0.001 MFLOPS.