4 ms·
Anything is possible, but so far the flying car and parallel programming startups have all failed :). (Moller and Peakstream come to mind)
by paul 18y ago
Anything is possible, but so far the flying car and parallel programming startups have all failed :). (Moller and Peakstream come to mind)
- Mapou 18y agoWhich parallel programming startups are you referring to? Sure, the established companies are adapting their exisiting tools to address the new multicore processors but I am not aware of any new parallel programming tools startups that failed. Most of the multicore processor startups are still around. Tilera, Ambric, Pico, etc... are still hanging in there. Pico is doing great. Israel's Plurality is just now beginning to get recognition for its self-balancing 64 to 256-core hypercore chip. My point is that there are very few new multicore startups and I think that the reason is not that too many of them failed in the past but that only a few have had anything really interesting or disruptive to offer. It remains that there is a big problem that needs to be solved right now and whoever solves it will grab a lion share of the CPU market in this century.
- aswanson 18y agoTo what end? What specific value add is a multicore processor to mom and pop that is not being addressed by an intel quad core? The only thing that moves units is applications. As far as the general user is concerned, the processor does not exist. And that is how it should be.
- Mapou 18y agoAre you kidding me? Once cheap massive parallelism becomes the norm, you're going to see amazing applications for the average person, especially intelligent programs. For examples, intelligent answering systems, voice recognition, handwriting recognition, face recognition, dog walker, housekeeping robots, portable language translators, self-driving vehicles, sentries, etc... The possibilities are endless.
- aswanson 18y agoAll of those things are already with us. The problem with those things are in the algorithm performance, not compute cycles.
- bayareaguy 18y agoPeakstream may not have reached their "peak" but they were bought by Google for an undisclosed sum, which was probably good timing given that larger players are now entering that field. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070605-google-buys-peakstream-inc.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070605-google-buys-pe...
- paul 18y agoI don't know all the specifics, but I doubt that was a "successful" exit.
- bayareaguy 18y agoWasn't peakstream just a quick flip of the stanford brook gpu research? http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060918-7763.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060918-7763.html The new company is entering the public eye with $17 million in funding and a leadership roster that includes former executives and tech guys from Sun, VMWare, NVIDIA, and NetApp. PeakStream's Chief Scientist is Prof. Pat Hanrahan of Stanford, who was formerly involved with Stanford's stream processing research endeavor, the Brook project. The Brook project's work on using GPUs as stream processors formed the foundation on which PeakStream has built their newly announced product.