ok, so we're just arguing about terminology and expectation. maybe that reenforces Feo's point. it is worth noting that the El Dorado started out as a general

ok, so we're just arguing about terminology and expectation. maybe that reenforces Feo's point. it is worth noting that the El Dorado started out as a general purpose computer, then a general purpose scientific computer, and then later as a "graph processor" in an XT frame because the MTA on its own was market-dead. and that Feo has been a big supporter since at least stage 2. maybe is exactly this 'parallelism means GPU' which he's trying to argue against. I agree the overall arch of that point didn't really follow through in his talk, or someone's summary of that talk. 'mpp' was certainly a label adopted by TMC's cms 1-2, which were pretty damn simd. its was also used by the cray T3e, which was markedly not. the mta had 128 threads per cpu. a large enough instantiation could have had a few thousand hardware threads. later unbuilt designs backed the thread state in dram and could have gotten pretty damn fat. arguably 'massive' should be squishily about concurrency width.