Technology

55715 readers

5725 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

195

Raspberry Pi is 4.5 times faster than the Cray 1 was in 1978 (www.roylongbottom.org.uk)

submitted 6 months ago by derrickoswald@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From an evaluation by Roy Longbottom, this interesting observation:

In 1978, the Cray 1 supercomputer cost $7 Million, weighed 10,500 pounds and had a 115 kilowatt power supply. It was, by far, the fastest computer in the world. The Raspberry Pi costs around $70 (CPU board, case, power supply, SD card), weighs a few ounces, uses a 5 watt power supply and is more than 4.5 times faster than the Cray 1.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 32 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That’s surprisingly powerful for the Cray. So it could have probably ran Doom?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 22 points 6 months ago

Hard to say. It had 8MB of RAM, which is plenty for Doom. Its CPU runs at 80MHz--a monstrous clock rate for 1976--but from what I can tell of its architecture, it favors running the same thing on millions of datapoints. Something like how GPUs work now. Doom wasn't coded for an architecture like that.

Carmack has some remarks about it here (quoted below for avoiding Xhitter): https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1340794861050605568

"AFAIK, nobody ever ported Doom to run on a Cray 1. The scalar CPU should be fast enough (in 1976!) to draw 320x200, but memory would be an issue because it wasn't byte addressable -- you could only load and store aligned 64 bit values, and a max of 1M elements would be a pinch. "

So that 8MB of RAM sounds like a lot, but it can't load data very efficiently for less than 64-bit values, and thus it doesn't go as far as you'd think.