Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Aug 2009 22:34 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems I've often wondered why computers - be it laptops or desktop - are so relatively monolithic. Wouldn't it make much more sense to have a whole cluster of very tiny individual computers, all with their own tiny processor, RAM, data storage, and serial ports, which power up when needed and are easily replaced when broken? Well, Liquidware thought so too, and came up with the Illuminato X Machina.
Thread beginning with comment 380058
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Potential
by jscipione on Sat 22nd Aug 2009 06:43 UTC
jscipione
Member since:
2009-08-22

You have to be blind to not see the potential of this. Just imagine if these devices were smaller and more powerful, Forget dual-core or quad-core CPUs, this is desktop cluster

Reply Score: 1

RE: Potential
by calica on Sat 22nd Aug 2009 06:51 in reply to "Potential"
calica Member since:
2007-02-05

You have to be blind to not see the potential of this. Just imagine if these devices were smaller and more powerful, Forget dual-core or quad-core CPUs, this is desktop cluster


It just goes against decades of integration. It will never compete on a cost or bandwidth basis. On die interconnect is faster than on board interconnect which is faster than off board interconnect. More dies, more boards, more connectors, more cost.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Potential
by Quake on Sat 22nd Aug 2009 06:59 in reply to "RE: Potential"
Quake Member since:
2005-10-14

"You have to be blind to not see the potential of this. Just imagine if these devices were smaller and more powerful, Forget dual-core or quad-core CPUs, this is desktop cluster


It just goes against decades of integration. It will never compete on a cost or bandwidth basis. On die interconnect is faster than on board interconnect which is faster than off board interconnect. More dies, more boards, more connectors, more cost.
"

It reminds me of the Eniac Bulbs that you needed to replaced all the time...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Potential
by sbergman27 on Sun 23rd Aug 2009 07:43 in reply to "Potential"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

You have to be blind to not see the potential of this. Just imagine if these devices were smaller and more powerful, Forget dual-core or quad-core CPUs, this is desktop cluster

And clustering is a clunky band-aid "solution" for when you can't afford SSI. I'll keep my quad, thank you very much.

Edited 2009-08-23 07:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Potential
by reflect on Sun 23rd Aug 2009 22:40 in reply to "RE: Potential"
reflect Member since:
2007-07-10

And clustering is a clunky band-aid "solution" for when you can't afford SSI. I'll keep my quad, thank you very much.


I think this is a very arrogant statement, considering a large amount of the problems we currently do calculations on, are "embarrassingly parallel". And by large, I mean well over 75%.

Now, I do recognize that for some things, a uni-processor would be best, but there might be a hybrid solution here. Say, a quad-CPU and then a hundred of these slow ones behind it, handling the bulk of.. well, anything.

Besides, there are OS:es out there that are meshing hardware systems into SSI. Or does SSI only mean SSI if it's done in hardware for you?

Reply Parent Score: 1