 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I didn't know much about algorithms back then. Give me a break! I was
> only 11...
Heh and that's why I don't like it when people here point at what I don't
know when in some cases I wasn't born when it went obsolete :P
When I was 11 I was doing Javascript. And I've yet to learn *any* kind of
assembly language.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> Can somebody find out the typical MIPS and FLOPS for the following:
>>
>> - Commodore 64 (6510 @ ~1 MHz)
>> - ZX Spectrum (Z80 @ 3.5 MHz)
>> - Pentium I @ 66 MHz
>> - Pentium II @ 233 MHz
>> - Pentium III @ 500 MHz
>> - Pentium IV @ 4.0 GHz
>> - Intel Core 2 Quad @ 3.0 GHz
>>
>
> Get SETI@Home host statistics XML file. There is quite a variety of
> computers there.
Clarification: you will NOT find a C64 in there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hand assembly was actually a common practice until 16-bit processors made
> this too troublesome; with at most 256 opcodes to remember (although the
> 6809[1] had prefix opcodes that made the following opcode take on a
> different meaning), many 8-bit assembly programmers were perfectly capable
> of reading and writing the opcodes directly from/to a memory listing.
With a RISC 32-bit processor it was pretty easy too. The instructions were
all 32-bit and all laid out in a similar way (first 5 bits for the
instruction code, next 3 for conditional flags, next 3 groups of 4 bits for
which registers to use, etc. The OS had a handy disassembly function
though, where you passed it the 32-bit opcode and it returned a string of
assembler, of course most programs/debuggers made use of this so you rarely
needed to actually decipher the bits.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Clarification: you will NOT find a C64 in there.
Really? Nobody has modded their C64 to run this yet?
[You think I'm kidding???]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> - Commodore 64 (6510 @ ~1 MHz)
> - ZX Spectrum (Z80 @ 3.5 MHz)
> - Pentium I @ 66 MHz
> - Pentium II @ 233 MHz
> - Pentium III @ 500 MHz
> - Pentium IV @ 4.0 GHz
> - Intel Core 2 Quad @ 3.0 GHz
No idea about the processing power of those, but yesterday I saw a
Cray-1 supercomputer.
I say "supercomputer"... According to Wikipedia:
- 80 MHz clock.
- 160 MIPS theoretical peak.
- 136 MFLOPS typical.
- 250 MFLOPS peak (for heavily vectorised workloads).
- 8 MB RAM max.
- 5.5 tons.
- 115 kW for the basic system (NOT including cooling).
I'm having great difficulty finding numbers, but I'm told modern
computers are measured in multiple GFLOPS rather than MFLOPS. And
certainly they seem to hit tens of thousands of MIPS (although for
radically different instruction sets that's not a teffically meaningful
comparison).
It seems likely that my old laptop is more powerful that this 5.5-ton
Freon-cooled monster.
I'm now trying to find out if my laptop out-powers the Cray-2. I still
have a book somewhere claiming this to be "the world's most powerful
computer"...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> No idea about the processing power of those, but yesterday I saw a
> Cray-1 supercomputer.
> I say "supercomputer"... According to Wikipedia:
> - 80 MHz clock.
> - 160 MIPS theoretical peak.
> - 136 MFLOPS typical.
> - 250 MFLOPS peak (for heavily vectorised workloads).
> - 8 MB RAM max.
> - 5.5 tons.
> - 115 kW for the basic system (NOT including cooling).
On the other hand, we are talking about 1976 here. With regular desktop
computers we were talking about KMIPS and KFLOPS and a few kB of RAM at
most.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:14:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Chambers wrote:
>
>> Heh... while I never used the original model, most of the schools where
>> I lived used IIe's or later. As the article says, there are *still*
>> schools around that have labs full of them.
>
>Must be a regional thing... When I was at school, it was the BBC Micro -
>and nothing else!
When I was in school, we weren't even allowed to use calculators never mind have
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> On the other hand, we are talking about 1976 here. With regular desktop
> computers we were talking about KMIPS and KFLOPS and a few kB of RAM at
> most.
Oh, sure, not debating that. It's just impressive to see how far we've come.
People still talk about requiring a "Cray supercomputer" to perform a
given task. But it seems that the famous Cray-1 and Cray-2 were actually
far less powerful than a typical desktop today. (My dad saw me looking
at the Cray-1 and suggested using it just for POV-Ray. It seems to be
this would actually be a rather bad idea...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Must be a regional thing... When I was at school, it was the BBC Micro -
>> and nothing else!
>
> When I was in school, we weren't even allowed to use calculators never mind have
Oh, this was at my first school. We used the computer for writing
things, and there was also a dragon-related "game" that was supposed to
be educational in some mannar... Hey, we were only little. ;-)
The school I spent most of my years at did not allow electronic devices
of any kind. We were also not allowed to watch TV because it was deemed
"too violent". (Except that the older kids were allowed to watch the
news - HOW IS THIS NOT VIOLENT???)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> People still talk about requiring a "Cray supercomputer" to perform a
> given task. But it seems that the famous Cray-1 and Cray-2 were actually
> far less powerful than a typical desktop today. (My dad saw me looking
> at the Cray-1 and suggested using it just for POV-Ray. It seems to be
> this would actually be a rather bad idea...)
There was somewhere out there a Cray-2 (I think) you could log into via
telnet and run apps. It had POV-Ray on it already, an older version (2.x
or maybe 3.0) I ran a basic scene from the samples and was surprised at
how long it actually took.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
