adapteva

14 ms·

151.
by adapteva 11y ago
Nope, it's now MIT license!!
152.
by adapteva 11y ago
I am sure the RISC-V core team has a much better answer. Their mission statement is a good start. https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2014/EECS-2014-1... The good news is that RISC has been around sin
153.
by adapteva 11y ago
Most DSP archs came out of thr 90's and many of the cores today are a reflection of that trend (ceva etc). I worked on the TigerSharc DSP for 8 years and can tell you that from an implementation standpoint they can be a nightmare! Not
154.
by adapteva 11y ago
Definitely! Straightforward, especially if you use https://github.com/parallella/oh
155.
Why I will be using RISC-V in my next chip(adapteva.com)
158 points by adapteva 11y ago|97 comments
156.
Parallella Kickstarter Supercomputing Project Celebrates 3 Year Anniversary(kickstarter.com)
3 points by adapteva 11y ago|0 comments
157.
by adapteva 11y ago
Part of democratizing is access to information, access to different choices, access to drivers. Can GPUs do this. In my view, not a bad result considering 2014 general availability? How long (and how many $billions did it take for CUDA to c
158.
by adapteva 11y ago
Looking for feedback. Why do you think there haven't been more people using these parallel programming frameworks? I have my own theories...
159.
by adapteva 11y ago
Have you used the Parallella? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/adapteva/parallella-a-s... Kickstarter goal (first sentence from day 1): Making parallel computing easy to use has been described as "a probl
160.
How the #$% do I program the Parallella?(parallella.org)
4 points by adapteva 11y ago|2 comments
161.
by adapteva 11y ago
Direct links if you still want to participate. Just dd card, powerup, and forget. http://parallellocalypse.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/... http://parallellocalypse.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/.
162.
by adapteva 11y ago
Mind boggling pricing for sure, but $0.065/hr is still greater than $0/hour:-)
163.
by adapteva 11y ago
Thanks! Clearly we don't have the volume to make this as big as @home, but let's not forget how expensive it is to run a big computer. The folding@home project claims 36,000 TFLOPS of performance. If we generously estimate 1 GFLOP
164.
by adapteva 11y ago
Do you have some ideas/opinions who the industry will contain power consumption with big cores? Current super computers running big brawny cores and GPU accelerators are running at 5 GFLOPS/W at best. (consensus that we need to ge
165.
by adapteva 11y ago
Not familiar with the price point, reference? Pricing at AWS seems to be more like $0.65/hour for one GPU? http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/ Either way, the point of supercomputer.io is that it would be free.
166.
by adapteva 11y ago
The slide stated that one Epiphany core is 27 times slower than one Xeon core. clearly the goal here is to ramp..the 324 cores all came online today. If we don't get to >10,000 cores, then the effort has failed.
167.
by adapteva 11y ago
Epiphany is being considered as the technology that comes "after the next". CPU is the default, then GPU, then "the others". Software is king and shared resource supercomputers have an incredibly long list of legacy soft
168.
by adapteva 11y ago
Yes, agreed. Note that the cool part of distributed computing is that everything is duplicated.(IO / disk / DRAM / CPU)
169.
by adapteva 11y ago
Are saying that folding@home, BOINC and all the rest is all useless and that all scientists need in to do research is 4 old i7 desktops? As far as the benchmark is concerned, check out this presentation from Ericsson on page 9 concerning FF
170.
by adapteva 11y ago
It will be an image processing demo. Here's a hint... http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.5851
171.
by adapteva 11y ago
Yes, I know Brian's work well. His computers are awesome! Counting TFLOPS is important for some, but for others it's the number of CPU cores that count. Better to compare real workloads. In the case of supercomputer.io the key wi
172.
by adapteva 11y ago
Any questions/comments? (AMA)
173.
by adapteva 12y ago
If you co-design the package, then a realistic test shuttle fab turn around time is ~4 months. It also depends on how early you were in the process. Doing shuttles in 28nm in 2011 was definitely bleeding edge. Clearly something happened to
174.
by adapteva 12y ago
The truth is that big market companies rarely if ever buy from chip startups. With new technology, the best forward is to partner with a larger company and license the IP. (see cognivue, mobile eye as great example in the automotive market)
175.
by adapteva 12y ago
Agree on the FPGA-style IO! If it was up to me that chip would have happened 5 years ago...
176.
by adapteva 12y ago
Yes, we were definitely lucky, although the cash flow risk wasn't on purpose! Some things happened in that graph that were out of our control. The lesson from that graph is don't count your money until is in the bank and don'
177.
by adapteva 14y ago
YES, you will get the source code for the FPGA logic.
178.
by adapteva 14y ago
We didn't focus on the FPGA because the project was more about parallel programming methods, but it's an open platform so the adventurous ones can hack and modify it freely.
179.
by adapteva 14y ago
Very eloquent and insightful post by yosefk. Maybe I shouldn't admit this(as a founder of Adapteva) but I actually learned something very important from his post.:-) Here's another sharp post by Greg Pfister that also talks about the import
180.
by adapteva 14y ago
We would rather not think of that option:-) if the ks project fails, we'll do our best, but seems unlikely that we could support selling kits to hobbyists and they would certainly cost thousands of dollars each due to a lack of volume.

More ›