On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Florin Iucha wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:35:41AM -0500, Mike Miller wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Ryan Coleman wrote: >>> I think the only thing "super" about this is the marketing ploy >>> getting people to buy them. :) >> >> I thought the superness derived from the idea that one could put many >> together, fairly inexpensively, and get a lot of cores for low cost: > > Yes, with the money you would spend on an ox, you can get 1000 ant > colonies, with a combined towing capacity of 5 oxen! For $99, "it comes with a 64-core Epiphany Multicore Accelerator, which helps the board achieve around 90 gigaflops." So you get to a teraflop for about $1200. I took that quote from the article linked from the initial posting in this thread: http://www.geek.com/chips/a-99-linux-supercomputer-has-been-built-will-ship-this-summer-1552343/ >> If you run a real supercomputer, you will pay a *lot* for power, but >> this little bugger can't be using all that much. > > Power in = useful work + waste > > </comment level="slightly" mode="sarcastic"> Are you mocking the idea of saving money on electricity? I don't really understand your comment. Anyway, it seems that there is a lot of interest in having servers use less energy and take up less space: http://www.google.com/search?q=hp+moonshot Mike