>> Hell, if I had any clue how much performance a current CPU delivers, 
>> I'd know if these numbers are impressive or not! ;-)
> 
> Well, consider that a current CPU runs at some small multiple[1] of 
> 3GHz, and it's unlikely to do more than some small multiple[2] of FLOPs 
> per clock cycle, it sounds pretty fast to me.

Er, yes.

240 cores running 96 threads each yielding over 12,000 threads? That's 
pretty parallel... ;-)

> I suspect the difference 
> between "peak" and "sustained" for both is going to be based on how fast 
> you can feed them numbers from RAM.

"A supercomputer is a device for turning a compute-bound problem into an 
I/O-bound problem."

Of course, a GPU is way faster than a CPU, but that's because a GPU 
can't do everything that a CPU can. (I emphasise: *because*.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message