|
Plenty of you out there in Television Land have long given up on watching Motorola for lack of action-- and we agree, it's got a painfully slow-moving plot. Instead, some of you are tuning into IBM for your PowerPC-themed entertainment, hoping that the action will be a little faster on the Big Blue channel. Well, we don't know about that, but we did stumble across a nifty little CNET story about a genetics firm who just rented a humongous supercomputer from IBM. According to the article, this thing contains five thousand processors and is apparently so large that it has to be installed in chunks over the course of a year-- into "one floor of a professional office building in downtown Atlanta." (The article doesn't mention what color the thing is.)
Now, if you're like us, you're probably thinking that Apple really dropped the ball on this one. After all, the company has its own supercomputers to sell-- ones that are a lot smaller and that, coincidentally, just happen to be overstocked in the retail channel right now. So why didn't Apple get in there and persuade this genetics company to buy a Cube instead? After all, the latest addition to Apple's board of directors is Art Levinson, a guy who just happens to be the CEO of Genentech, Inc. That, more than likely, qualifies as an "in" to the wild and wooly world of human genome mapping, right? Plus we all know that Art is a Cube fan, since he appeared in that promotional video months before he joined Apple's board. So couldn't he have gone in and won the sale?
Okay, sure, IBM's supercomputer is a little more powerful than Apple's brain-in-a-box. Reportedly Big Blue's Big Box can crank out up to 7.5 teraflops, which is over two thousand times more instructions per second than the G4's theoretical maximum 3.6 gigaflop performance. On the other hand, the Cube looks pretty sitting on a desk, so it pretty much all evens out. And if these guys really needed 7.5 teraflops, we're sure Apple could have sold them five or six thousand Cubes and solved its overstock problem at the same time. In fact, IBM's supercomputer cost "tens of millions of dollars" (which we interpret to mean at least $20 million), whereas six thousand Cubes would have run them a mere $10,794,000. And that's retail, for Pete's sake!
Still, that ship has sailed. Hopefully, at the very least, IBM's supercomputer has given Apple some more ideas about how to fight the Megahertz War via the magic of multiprocessing: 5000-processor Power Mac G4/500, anyone?
| |