4 ms·

This is actually mildly surprising to me that the Raspberry Pi is only 4.5x faster. I would have bet 10-20x faster just because of how much time has passed and

This is actually mildly surprising to me that the Raspberry Pi is only 4.5x faster. I would have bet 10-20x faster just because of how much time has passed and all the talk about: "your cellphone is 1000x faster than the Apollo computers" that I've been hearing since the time of the t-mobile sidekick. I've always taken them with a grain of salt, but even if they were only an order of magnitude off, a Pi is loads faster than a sidekick. And sure the Cray is loads faster than the Apollo computers, but I wouldn't have thought it was THAT much faster. I am amazed.

snek_case 3y ago
The Cray 1 was way ahead of its time. It implemented SIMD vector instructions to speed up numerical computation, was liquid cooled, and ran at 80 MHz (in 1976). The chief architect, Seymour Cray, was kind of a genius, and is responsible for designing many other pioneering machines. Also, fun fact, it didn't have a CPU. It used all discrete logic chips, and was wired by hand, with lots and lots of wire. IIRC Seymour Cray liked to hire women to do the wiring job, because they had an easier time fitting inside the computer core to wire it, and doing detailed work because they had smaller hands.
- msla 3y ago
  > Also, fun fact, it didn't have a CPU. It used all discrete logic chips, and was wired by hand, That's how CPUs were built back then. What it didn't have was a single-chip CPU, or a microprocessor. Next up: "The Model T Ford didn't have an engine, it had this gasoline-burning device to provide motive power."
- drfuchs 3y ago
  Lots and lots of wire, yes, with each one cut to a specific length so that all of each gate's input signals arrive at the same time. That's why the backplane looks like a mess of wires hanging down due to seemingly being way too long.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    Note that modern RAM has length matched traces. Take a look at all the PCB traces near RAM and CPU. You can see them 'squiggle' looking for matching-space at either end of the RAM/CPU connection. PCBs make things like consistent length matching easier. All circuit boards have near identical lengths, controlled impedances and other features that support ... Well... Effectively 6-billion baudrates for DDR5. 6000Mhz DDR5 with 64-bits per half-clock (3000Mhz clock so 6000 transfers per second) has a bit every 5 centimeters or so.
- whizzter 3y ago
  And that kinda makes it unfair to the Raspberry, maybe not the RPI1 but I'm pretty sure that the RPi4 (rated at 78x the Cray) running code in compute-mode would thrash the Cray 1 even harder (yes, not entirely comparable but since you probably didn't get full throughput on the Cray with regular C code then using the GPU on the RPi should be fair game).
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  > SIMD vector instructions Err... That term is used to describe modern vector instructions that are NOT vector instructions in the classical Cray-sense. Modern CPUs use wide registers that can be regarded as vectors of 2/4/8/... values. Cray used memory-to-memory variable-length vectors. I'm not saying that "SIMD vector instructions" is an incorrect description of what the Cray machines did, I'm saying that the term usually means something else today.
- heelix 3y ago
  The fluorinert coolant was really neat stuff too. Inert, so you could submerge electronics in it to cool them. I was able to find recycled coolant and used that to do the liquid cooled build for my dual celeron system where coolant flowed over the board/cpu. Knowing what I do now... I should have been far less cavalier with the stuff.
robin_reala 3y ago
The Cray-1 was ~160,000,000 FLOPS. The Apollo Guidance Computer was about 14,000 FLOPS, so about 11,500× slower.
- jermaustin1 3y ago
  I guess it was THAT much faster. That is an insane leap in performance in a decade. I know they are apples and oranges. One weighed about 150x more than the other, but still such a surprise to me.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Seymour Cray was absolute genius. There are so many innovations in the Cray-1 that you could easily write a book about it. edit: some searching later: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/116196 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/116196
  - knorker 3y ago
    They're not just apples and oranges, but apples vs differential equations. They had completely different requirements. Like ROM being sown for Apollo. You get something completely different if failure is not an option. But also yes, it is a big leap. NASA bootstrapped the semiconductor industry by buying up most of the world's supply. Without the Apollo program we may only just now have gotten smartphones. (And some people still think it's a waste of money. pff!)
    - beerandt 3y ago
      Yeah, primarily minimize weight and power while meeting compute requirements. Excess compute in this case is bad design. The cray was 10,000 lb and 115 kilowatts. Not payload friendly. I'm imagining Kevin Bacon doing his Apollo 13 power budgeting scene, but needs another ~114kw.
      - knorker 3y ago
        Gary Sinise. Kevin Bacon had already had the measles, so he took his place. :-)
tass 3y ago
You’re not wrong, since the 4.5x number comes from a comparison with the rPi 1. The rPi 4 is over 10x faster than the 1. The original article points out that the raspberry pi 400, with the benchmark targeting 64 bits, was about 80x Cray for the same benchmark which was 4.5x for the rPi 1. Raspberry Pi 5 advertises a 2-3x performance gain over earlier versions, though this wasn’t benchmarked in these tests.
- postmodest 3y ago
  Aren't these also in FLOPS? The rpi isn't exactly a floating-point monster. Hell, until the Pentium, Intel CPU's weren't guaranteed to even have an FPU. As to ARM in general, here's a post about how ARM-1 compared to the 387: https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24826/did-the-arm-1-really-outperform-the-387 https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24826/did...
  - justin66 3y ago
    > Hell, until the Pentium, Intel CPU's weren't guaranteed to even have an FPU. 80486
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      486SX
      - justin66 3y ago
        The 80486SX was introduced two years after the 80486 and did not have an FPU (unless it was purchased as an option). I think the meaning of my comment was clear: the 80486 was the first Intel CPU guaranteed to have an FPU. I didn't say all the Intel CPUs which came afterward were guaranteed to have them...
        postmodest 3y ago
        My first "my own purchase" PC was a 486sx. So as a _line_, "the 486" wasn't guaranteed to have an FPU.
bee_rider 3y ago
It is against a Pi 1. It looks like the Cray gets a bit of a boost from the linpack scores (the pi is only 1.6x faster!), which is a good test for the Cray (understatement!).
flavius29663 3y ago
Apllo was not the fastest computer in the world. It was a small device enough to shuttle rockets around the moon and back.

snek_case 3y ago

The Cray 1 was way ahead of its time. It implemented SIMD vector instructions to speed up numerical computation, was liquid cooled, and ran at 80 MHz (in 1976). The chief architect, Seymour Cray, was kind of a genius, and is responsible for designing many other pioneering machines. Also, fun fact, it didn't have a CPU. It used all discrete logic chips, and was wired by hand, with lots and lots of wire. IIRC Seymour Cray liked to hire women to do the wiring job, because they had an easier time fitting inside the computer core to wire it, and doing detailed work because they had smaller hands.

msla 3y ago
> Also, fun fact, it didn't have a CPU. It used all discrete logic chips, and was wired by hand, That's how CPUs were built back then. What it didn't have was a single-chip CPU, or a microprocessor. Next up: "The Model T Ford didn't have an engine, it had this gasoline-burning device to provide motive power."
drfuchs 3y ago
Lots and lots of wire, yes, with each one cut to a specific length so that all of each gate's input signals arrive at the same time. That's why the backplane looks like a mess of wires hanging down due to seemingly being way too long.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Note that modern RAM has length matched traces. Take a look at all the PCB traces near RAM and CPU. You can see them 'squiggle' looking for matching-space at either end of the RAM/CPU connection. PCBs make things like consistent length matching easier. All circuit boards have near identical lengths, controlled impedances and other features that support ... Well... Effectively 6-billion baudrates for DDR5. 6000Mhz DDR5 with 64-bits per half-clock (3000Mhz clock so 6000 transfers per second) has a bit every 5 centimeters or so.
whizzter 3y ago
And that kinda makes it unfair to the Raspberry, maybe not the RPI1 but I'm pretty sure that the RPi4 (rated at 78x the Cray) running code in compute-mode would thrash the Cray 1 even harder (yes, not entirely comparable but since you probably didn't get full throughput on the Cray with regular C code then using the GPU on the RPi should be fair game).
peterfirefly 3y ago
> SIMD vector instructions Err... That term is used to describe modern vector instructions that are NOT vector instructions in the classical Cray-sense. Modern CPUs use wide registers that can be regarded as vectors of 2/4/8/... values. Cray used memory-to-memory variable-length vectors. I'm not saying that "SIMD vector instructions" is an incorrect description of what the Cray machines did, I'm saying that the term usually means something else today.
heelix 3y ago
The fluorinert coolant was really neat stuff too. Inert, so you could submerge electronics in it to cool them. I was able to find recycled coolant and used that to do the liquid cooled build for my dual celeron system where coolant flowed over the board/cpu. Knowing what I do now... I should have been far less cavalier with the stuff.

robin_reala 3y ago

The Cray-1 was ~160,000,000 FLOPS. The Apollo Guidance Computer was about 14,000 FLOPS, so about 11,500× slower.

jermaustin1 3y ago
I guess it was THAT much faster. That is an insane leap in performance in a decade. I know they are apples and oranges. One weighed about 150x more than the other, but still such a surprise to me.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Seymour Cray was absolute genius. There are so many innovations in the Cray-1 that you could easily write a book about it. edit: some searching later: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/116196 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/116196
- knorker 3y ago
  They're not just apples and oranges, but apples vs differential equations. They had completely different requirements. Like ROM being sown for Apollo. You get something completely different if failure is not an option. But also yes, it is a big leap. NASA bootstrapped the semiconductor industry by buying up most of the world's supply. Without the Apollo program we may only just now have gotten smartphones. (And some people still think it's a waste of money. pff!)
  - beerandt 3y ago
    Yeah, primarily minimize weight and power while meeting compute requirements. Excess compute in this case is bad design. The cray was 10,000 lb and 115 kilowatts. Not payload friendly. I'm imagining Kevin Bacon doing his Apollo 13 power budgeting scene, but needs another ~114kw.
    - knorker 3y ago
      Gary Sinise. Kevin Bacon had already had the measles, so he took his place. :-)

tass 3y ago

You’re not wrong, since the 4.5x number comes from a comparison with the rPi 1. The rPi 4 is over 10x faster than the 1. The original article points out that the raspberry pi 400, with the benchmark targeting 64 bits, was about 80x Cray for the same benchmark which was 4.5x for the rPi 1. Raspberry Pi 5 advertises a 2-3x performance gain over earlier versions, though this wasn’t benchmarked in these tests.

postmodest 3y ago
Aren't these also in FLOPS? The rpi isn't exactly a floating-point monster. Hell, until the Pentium, Intel CPU's weren't guaranteed to even have an FPU. As to ARM in general, here's a post about how ARM-1 compared to the 387: https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24826/did-the-arm-1-really-outperform-the-387 https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24826/did...
- justin66 3y ago
  > Hell, until the Pentium, Intel CPU's weren't guaranteed to even have an FPU. 80486
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    486SX
    - justin66 3y ago
      The 80486SX was introduced two years after the 80486 and did not have an FPU (unless it was purchased as an option). I think the meaning of my comment was clear: the 80486 was the first Intel CPU guaranteed to have an FPU. I didn't say all the Intel CPUs which came afterward were guaranteed to have them...
      - postmodest 3y ago
        My first "my own purchase" PC was a 486sx. So as a _line_, "the 486" wasn't guaranteed to have an FPU.

bee_rider 3y ago

It is against a Pi 1. It looks like the Cray gets a bit of a boost from the linpack scores (the pi is only 1.6x faster!), which is a good test for the Cray (understatement!).

flavius29663 3y ago

Apllo was not the fastest computer in the world. It was a small device enough to shuttle rockets around the moon and back.