Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
(OP)
http:/ /forwardth inking.pcm ag.com/ces /292745-in tel-enters -smartphon e-chip-rac e-for-real
Otellini is Intel CEO, so I'm sure this is not a frivolous claim.
Does anyone know specifically what partiular parameter was compared here? Maybe FLOPS?
To me, that's an astounding claim (even though I realize a lot more of the work depended on individuals than on computers back then).Quote:
To put smartphone progress into perspective, Otellini said a smartphone today has more computing power than all of NASA did when it put a man on the moon in 1969.
Otellini is Intel CEO, so I'm sure this is not a frivolous claim.
Does anyone know specifically what partiular parameter was compared here? Maybe FLOPS?
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?





RE: Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
A smartphone would be running over 500 MIPS with 64 GB of flash, and a couple of GB of RAM. However, its graphics processor can probably do about 10x that throughput, albeit, more narrowly focused on pixel processing, rather than general purpose processing.
In 1982, 3 years after the first moon landing, our corporate timeshared CRAY-1 was rated around 80 MFLOPS. This was for a company with about $1 billion annual sales. One would have expected NASA to have a few CRAY-1s around, but the typical graphics processor alone blows a CRAY-1 out of the water just displaying a complex splash screen.
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
Just consider nonvolatile storage, when in 1982, a hard drive disk would be about 5MB, and now you can't even buy that SMALL a memory unit of any sort. We've had:
> Core
> SRAM
> CCD
> DRAM
> EPROM
> EEPROM
> MNOS
> bubble
> 8" floppy
> 5" floppy
> 3.5" floppy
> Zip disk
> Jaz drive
> Thumb drive
> CD
> DVD
> Blue-ray
> Magneto-optical
> Holographic
As a devotee of history, it boggles the mind how many different storage methods have been developed in a scant 60 yrs. As long as my list is, I'm positive I've missed a bunch.
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
RE: Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
Yep, you completely missed TAPE, both 'punched' and 'magnetic', not to mention Hollerith Cards (AKA 'IBM cards').
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
UG/NX Museum: http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
RE: Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
--Scott
http://www.wertel.pro
RE: Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
Interestingly, it's absurdly difficult to duplicate the look of aged cedar shake.
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
Except that all low-E glass uses silver. Or fluorinated tin oxide. But no aluminum.
Don't worry though, the silver still keeps the mindrays out.
RE: Basis for claim: smartphone has more cmp power than all NASA's in 1969
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies