Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Parallella, a $99 Linux Supercomputer

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 171 posts

Re: Parallella, a $99 Linux Supercomputer

#111

Post by ZenoArrow »

sliverstorm wrote: post #106
ZenoArrow wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I fundamentally disagree that SoCs are different than desktop technology. They're just smaller. High-end architectures are already driven to be as power-efficient as possible, so when you cut them down they're still efficient. For example, Kabini is an "SoC" that has the same GCN CU as a "desktop" Kaveri or a discrete Radeon." You didn't really read what I said did you. A key factor for embedded electronics is power…

Yes, but in those 15W of power, Kabini will likely have 128 stream processors, and I suspect more memory bandwidth: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2278693 The Parallella doesn't seem inherently more appropriate for embedded devices; it just depends on your requirements. Kabini would be embarrassingly power-hungry in plenty of embedded applications, while the Parallella might be laughably slow in plenty…

You're nitpicking. I already gave a few examples of where Parallella would be a good fit. To remind you, let's revisit the OpenCV for robotics application. The Parallella is shaping up to be a great device for OpenCV applications, do you at least admit that?

Re: Parallella, a $99 Linux Supercomputer

#112

Post by sliverstorm »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #111
sliverstorm wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but in those 15W of power, Kabini will likely have 128 stream processors, and I suspect more memory bandwidth: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2278693 The Parallella doesn't seem inherently more appropriate for embedded devices; it just depends on your requirements. Kabini would be embarrassingly power-hungry in plenty of embedded applications, while the Parallella might be laughably slow in plenty…

You're nitpicking. I already gave a few examples of where Parallella would be a good fit. To remind you, let's revisit the OpenCV for robotics application. The Parallella is shaping up to be a great device for OpenCV applications, do you at least admit that?

I see, I am less confused now. You commented elsewhere on this page, and assume that we all have read those comments, though they are not in this chain right here.

Re: Parallella, a $99 Linux Supercomputer

#113

Post by qdog »

MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #99
phaet0n wrote: post #50

I'm really disappointed about how shallow the discussions about Adapteva are, and have been, on HN. To remind everyone, the H = hacker. This device is a godsend, as far as I'm concerned. For the first time ever I get fully documented access to compute array on chip. No the architecture wasn't designed for anything specific, like graphics, but that means I don't get bogged down in details I don't care about, like some…

I wish to pick one nit: This is not the first chipset to be fully documented and have this sort of massively-parallel structure. GreenArrays is producing hardware right now if you want to go play: http://www.greenarraychips.com/

Greenarrays eval board is $450, though. Parallella is $99 with everything. Parrallella's original intent was to fit in an Altoid tin, but it turns out rounded corners are expensive ;). Would have been a nice case, though.

And yes, I gave $99, hoping to have one soon.

Re: Parallella, a $99 Linux Supercomputer

#114

Post by NewAccnt »

phaet0n wrote: post #50

I'm really disappointed about how shallow the discussions about Adapteva are, and have been, on HN. To remind everyone, the H = hacker. This device is a godsend, as far as I'm concerned. For the first time ever I get fully documented access to compute array on chip. No the architecture wasn't designed for anything specific, like graphics, but that means I don't get bogged down in details I don't care about, like some…

Ok, since when is the ARM Cortex fully documented, and what depth does your comment add to this discussion? Your emotional appeal is more shallow than any other comment here! Throw in some programmer jargon and nostalgia, and a smiley and your comment is practically garbage. :)

Re: Parallella, a $99 Linux Supercomputer

#115

Post by bitcracker »

wmf wrote: post #68
phaet0n wrote: post #50

I'm really disappointed about how shallow the discussions about Adapteva are, and have been, on HN. To remind everyone, the H = hacker. This device is a godsend, as far as I'm concerned. For the first time ever I get fully documented access to compute array on chip. No the architecture wasn't designed for anything specific, like graphics, but that means I don't get bogged down in details I don't care about, like some…

ask what future things having something like this on a SoC would enable. I asked that and came up blank. And I haven't seen answers from anyone else, either. Has Adapteva themselves shown any examples where their chip beats a GPU?

One interesting application could be realtime 3D rendering because this is an area with small overhead. I know that the chip does not support floating point but that could be simulated by fixed point integers.

I agree with Shamanmuni that the great advantage of Parallela chip over GPUs is open source (full documentation). It's a practical study tool for real parallel programming tasks that many students can afford.

Re: Parallella, a $99 Linux Supercomputer

#116

Post by bitcracker »

MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #99
phaet0n wrote: post #50

I'm really disappointed about how shallow the discussions about Adapteva are, and have been, on HN. To remind everyone, the H = hacker. This device is a godsend, as far as I'm concerned. For the first time ever I get fully documented access to compute array on chip. No the architecture wasn't designed for anything specific, like graphics, but that means I don't get bogged down in details I don't care about, like some…

I wish to pick one nit: This is not the first chipset to be fully documented and have this sort of massively-parallel structure. GreenArrays is producing hardware right now if you want to go play: http://www.greenarraychips.com/

AFAIK the GreenArray chip provides only 128 bytes per core while Parallela supports 32 KBytes per core.

As a former Forth hacker I was enthusiastic at the first glance of the GA but 128 Bytes per core were really disappointing. What could that amount of RAM be useful for?

Re: Parallella, a $99 Linux Supercomputer

#117

Post by astrodust »

ethereal wrote: post #79
phaet0n wrote: post #50

I'm really disappointed about how shallow the discussions about Adapteva are, and have been, on HN. To remind everyone, the H = hacker. This device is a godsend, as far as I'm concerned. For the first time ever I get fully documented access to compute array on chip. No the architecture wasn't designed for anything specific, like graphics, but that means I don't get bogged down in details I don't care about, like some…

This is exactly my take on the Parallella board, and it's the exact reason why I donated to the Kickstarter back in the Fall. I want to try my hand at writing a real, efficient, many:many message-passing API on top of SHM. It's something I've been interested in for a while (and am doing in an a side project for x86_64). Not because it hasn't been done a thousand times before, but because it's neat. I want to write a…

Also worth mentioning is the Mojo board, also a Kickstarter project (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1106670630/mojo-digital-...) which is a simple FPGA system neatly packaged not unlike the Raspberry Pi.

http://embeddedmicro.com/

FPGA allows you to explore a lot of things that just aren't possible in a traditional CPU, no matter how parallel.

Re: Parallella, a $99 Linux Supercomputer

#118

Post by drivers99 »

phaet0n wrote: post #50

I'm really disappointed about how shallow the discussions about Adapteva are, and have been, on HN. To remind everyone, the H = hacker. This device is a godsend, as far as I'm concerned. For the first time ever I get fully documented access to compute array on chip. No the architecture wasn't designed for anything specific, like graphics, but that means I don't get bogged down in details I don't care about, like some…

writing toy DSL to asm compilers

Sounds like an ideal use of Forth.

Re: Parallella, a $99 Linux Supercomputer

#119

Post by mrb »

"this board should deliver about 90 GFLOPS of performance, or --in terms PC users understand-- about the same horse-power as a 45GHz CPU."

This is wrong.

A 4-core 3.0 GHz x86-64 processor delivers more GFLOPS than the Parallela: 96 GFLOPS with SSE instructions, because each core can execute 8 single precision instructions, 4 adds and 4 muls, each cycle. And yes, when Parallela claims 90 GFLOPS, they mean single-precision.

For example, for the same price as Parallela, you can get a $100 Phenom II X4 965 (4-core, 3.4 GHz, 125W) delivering 109 GFLOPS. Count $200 to include minimal mobo/RAM/PSU (if all you care about is raw GFLOPS).

The main advantage that Parallela has with their exotic architecture over x86-64 is a better GFLOPS/Watt metric. But if you care about this metric you should consider GPUs, which beat Parallela: http://parallelis.com/parallela-supercomputing-for-all-of-us...

Parallela may not beat anything on GFLOPS/Watt and GFLOPS/$, but if they can maintain ease of development (x86-64's stronghold) while doing not too bad on these 2 metrics (dominated by GPUs), they may be a good compromise and may have a shot at succeeding in the HPC market.

Post reply on HN