Live data from Hacker News

Cray versus Raspberry Pi

aardvark.co.nz

41–50 of 136 posts

Re: Cray versus Raspberry Pi

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't rest until the average microcontroller in an optical mouse is more powerful than a Cray 1.

I'm not aware of any optical mouse using a general purpose MCU, to my knowledge they are all using ASICs

Nordic dominates the market for keyboards and mice. Programmable MCUs with BLE radios are required for any wireless devices.

Re: Cray versus Raspberry Pi

#42

Reading this I wonder, say we did have a time machine and were somehow able to give scientists back in the day access to an RPI5. What sort of crazy experiments would that have spawned? I'm sure when the Cray 1 came out, access to it must have been very restricted and there must have been hoards of scientists clamoring to run their experiments and computations on it. What would have happened if we gave every one of t…

Do you think they would have run experiments that have been missed in the meantime? Why?

Re: Cray versus Raspberry Pi

#43

Reading this I wonder, say we did have a time machine and were somehow able to give scientists back in the day access to an RPI5. What sort of crazy experiments would that have spawned? I'm sure when the Cray 1 came out, access to it must have been very restricted and there must have been hoards of scientists clamoring to run their experiments and computations on it. What would have happened if we gave every one of t…

First of all, how would they talk to it? You'd have to give them an RPI5 with serial console enabled, and strict instructions not to exceed the 3.3 volt limits of the I/O. Now it's reasonable that you could generate NTSC video out of it, so they could see on the screen any output.

When you then explained it was just bit-banging said NTSC output, they'd be amazed even more.

Re: Cray versus Raspberry Pi

#44
Comparing against a raspberry pi 5 is kind of overkill. While a Pico 2 is close to computationally equivalent to a cray 1 now (version 2 added hardware floating point), the cray still has substantially more memory - almost 9MB vs 520k.

For parity, you have to move up to a raspberry pi zero 2, which costs $15 and uses about 2W of powerm

A million times cheaper than a cray in 2025 dollars and quite a bit more capable.

Re: Cray versus Raspberry Pi

#45

Reading this I wonder, say we did have a time machine and were somehow able to give scientists back in the day access to an RPI5. What sort of crazy experiments would that have spawned? I'm sure when the Cray 1 came out, access to it must have been very restricted and there must have been hoards of scientists clamoring to run their experiments and computations on it. What would have happened if we gave every one of t…

[deleted]

Re: Cray versus Raspberry Pi

#47
post #3

> but then again if you'd showed me an RPi5 back in 1977 I would have said "nah, impossible" so who knows? I was reading lots of scifi in 1977, so I may have tried to talk to the pi like Scotty trying to talk to the mouse in Star Trek IV. And since you can run an LLM and text to speech on an RPi5, it might have answered.

No need for an RPi 5. Back in 1982, a dual or quad-CPU X-MP could have run a small LLM, say, with 200–300K weights, without trouble. The Crays were, ironically, very well suited for neural networks, we just didn’t know it yet. Such an LLM could have handled grammar and code autocompletion, basic linting, or documentation queries and summarization. By the late 80s, a Y-MP might even have been enough to support a small conversational agent.

A modest PDP-11/34 cluster with AP-120 vector coprocessors might even have served as a cheaper pathfinder in the late 70s for labs and companies who couldn't afford a Cray 1 and its infrastructure.

But we lacked both the data and the concepts. Massive, curated datasets (and backpropagation!) weren’t even a thing until the late 80s or 90s. And even then, they ran on far less powerful hardware than the Crays. Ideas and concepts were the limiting factor, not the hardware.

Re: Cray versus Raspberry Pi

#49
My former boss (Steve Parker, RIP) shared a story of Turner Whitted making predictions about how much compute would be needed to achieve real-time ray tracing, some time around when his seminal paper was published (~1980). As the story goes, Turner went through some calculations and came to the conclusion that it’d take 1 Cray per pixel. Because of the space each Cray takes, they’d be too far apart and he thought they wouldn’t be able to link it to a monitor and get the results in real time, so instead you’d probably have to put the array of Crays in the desert, each one attached to an RGB light, and fly over it in an airplane to see the image.

Another comparison that is equally astonishing to the RPi is that modern GPUs have exceeded Whitted’s prediction. Turner’s paper used 640x480 images. At that resolution, extrapolating the 160 Mflops number, 1 Cray per pixel would be 49 Tera flops. A 4080 GPU has just shy of 50 Tflops peak performance, so it has surpassed what Turner thought we’d need.

Think about that - not just faster than a Cray for a lot less money, but one cheap consumer device is faster than 300,000 Crays.(!) Faster than a whole Cray per pixel. We really have come a long, long way.

The 5090 has over 300 Tflops of ray tracing perf, and the Tensor cores are now in the Petaflops range (with lower precision math), so we’re now exceeding the compute needed for 1 Cray per pixel at 1080p. 1 GPU faster than 2M Crays. Mind blowing.

Re: Cray versus Raspberry Pi

#50
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh really? What vehicle can I buy today, drive home, get twice the legal limit drunk, flop in the back alone to take a nap while my car drives me two hours away to a relative's house? I'd really like to buy that car so I await your response.

A Tesla is pretty close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZfkU1QgTI

Tesla is in no way close.
Post reply on HN