The actual article on bitcoins subject is much better. Sep 23, 2. He may be but the gflops of Bitcoin is no trusted 3rd party. Even assuming perfect hyperthreading that doubles the effective number of cores tflops is still a factor of 3 short. One hash calculation is considered for bit integer operations, and each integer operation is considered equal to two single-precision flops. Retrieved June 17,
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Sep 25, BeeOnRope , Sep 25, My personal best guess is that someone's signature on the Starcraft forums I'm not making this part up who even acknowledged that it's a bogus word, got propagated into some crease of the public consciousness and found it's way here. A graphics card has about 4.
Double precision vs single precision. The second for is ambiguous to which supercomputer it is referring to, gflops probably irrelevent in any case. This equates to around 4. In short, tflops get a significantly bitcoins complicated formula to calculate a result that borders on useless. A computer response time below 0.
Assuming Moore's law holds and computational power doubles every 18 months in the year we will break the xeraflop barrier. A xeraflop is over a trillion petaflops! Perhaps I am wrong, someone please double check the math. Remain nameless talk Your math is right.
The Roadrunner entry should be either clarified or removed. This section of the article has me confused. I don't know whether the prices represent the cost of individual components, specific machines or anything else for that matter. Could someone please clear this up by explaining what the prices are linked to. I have also marked it as confusing on the article. Given a speed of 3. Even assuming perfect hyperthreading that doubles the effective number of cores this is still a factor of 3 short.
The reference given in the quote goes to a website that shows a graph of CPU speed giving 70 GFlops for a top spec processor but is this believable? People have been reprogramming video cards to act as computation units for many years, but it requires very specialized programming technique, it is far more doable though then the above convoluted calculation.
That blasted Xera- prefix showed up again. The next one not yet defined is 9 sets of s. Or if Latin, it's either nove or nona. Either way , it's moot, because SI has not established a 10 27 prefix yet.
My personal best guess is that someone's signature on the Starcraft forums I'm not making this part up who even acknowledged that it's a bogus word, got propagated into some crease of the public consciousness and found it's way here.
I've seen people talking on here mention that a Google of "xeraflops" gets lots of hits, but a search of "xera" with "prefix" gets only a few thousand and most on the first page do not have any relation to numbers or SI. There should be a list of current processors Intel Core i7 , Athlon 64 , Cell , etc.
For example, does a FLOP involve one or two floating point numbers? Assuming two, is it the addition of two FP numbers? Is it a multiplication? If this was answered, I apologize, that I didn't see it.
Each of them can calculate one dp FMA fused multiply add per cycle. Good idea to keep an eye out for updates worth mentioning in the article. Any objections to me setting up auto-archive on this page? One hash calculation is considered as bit integer operations, and each integer operation is considered equal to two single-precision flops.
Source of constants is: Actual bitcoin mining contains no or almost no floating-point calculations. While the statement is indeed sourced, it seems strange that India will accomplish x what supercomputer leaders plan in the same timeframe.
If this is indeed the case, there should be more sources available then the single article that has been provided. This source can be found on the wikipedia page Supercomputing in India. Sorry -- what I mean to say is the statement is just not correct: I think India does NOT plan to build such a supercomputer. I think the source is just plain wrong. There isn't a single other collaborating article.
It is also important to consider fixed and floating-point formats in the context of precision — the size of the gaps between numbers. Every time a processor generates a new number via a mathematical calculation, that number must be rounded to the nearest value that can be stored via the format in use.
Since the gaps between adjacent numbers can be much larger with fixed-point processing when compared to floating-point processing, round-off error can be much more pronounced. As such, floating-point processing yields much greater precision than fixed-point processing, distinguishing floating-point processors as the ideal CPU when computing accuracy is a critical requirement.
The above paragraph is totally wrong, even though it is a direct quote from Summary: Fixed-point integer vs floating-point. The reason that article makes that claim there, but it is wrong when quoted here, is because they are comparing their 16 bit Fixed Point product to their 32 bit Floating Point product.
Actually their marketing is being a little bit deceptive in this regard. Given the same number of bits, Floating Point has greater dynamic range but less Percision when compared to Fixed Point. I am also concerned about the copyright issues, large chucks of that article "Fixed-point integer vs floating-point" have been copied and pasted directly into this wiki article. First, the author of the original reference at Dell was sloppy in using "FLOPs" as a plural, which is so easily confused with "FLOPS", a rate, differentiated only by capitalization; and then second, a Wikipedia author copied the original formula incompletely, and didn't notice the glaring inconsistency which that left.
It would be easy enough to correct the units and missing terms, but that would still leave a formula which 1 is overly-simplistic, as it doesn't consider threads, pipelines, functional units, or any other hardware details beyond mass-market home PC advertising; 2 doesn't consider asymmetric or hybrid mixed-processor machines, or even MPP machines with non-identical nodes; and 3 at best only calculates an absolute upper limit of FLOPS or GFLOPS, which can only ever be achieved with a very limited optimum instruction sequence, and then only for an ultra-brief time while the FP inputs can be taken from CPU registers.
In short, we'll get a significantly more complicated formula to calculate a result that borders on useless. This brief section was only added to the article within the past week or so. Is there general consensus that it needs to be a part of this article? And does it need to be the lead section of the article? I agree, the equation is nonsense without a proper context. The equation describes how to calculate the theoretical performance of one specific hardware architecture without regard to memory bandwidth or software overhead.
Also the term Socket by itself is ambiguous, my initial thought was that it was describing network sockets in a compute cluster, but upon reading the referenced article I see that in this case it referrers to the number of IC chip sockets, which is a huge assumption about the hardware. If you want to compare the computers you just compare their benchmark performance not some hardware specific conceptual value of what that performance might be.
The reference itself was somewhat interesting, perhaps it can be retained, as to the equation itself, it either needs to be accompanied by a lot of explanation and moved further down the page, or else I too vote to delete it.
The explanation about fixed point arithmetic in this article is not very good in my opinion, and it is also partially wrong. The actual article on the subject is much better. The same goes for floating point arithmetic. Since this is explained better in other places on wikipedia, I think this section should be deleted. As a Flop is a measure to compare different computer systems, someone really should explain how to measure in practice.
I can't understand that here. How many bits are to be used? Is it about adding two numbers? The equation for calculating theoretical FLOPS is for the number of logical cores, not physical cores unless 1 logical per physical.
The numbers Intel provides supports this statement. I will leave it to the editors to decide how to incorporate this information into the article. Reference number 2 is no longer valid.
My comment is in. The PS3 is listed at the same 1. Please update the chart for cost per flop. Additionally the data is grossly inaccurate. The entire chart needs to be recalculated using lowest cost per gigaflop data.
I was wondering what a typical computer, device or tablet out there in the wild is capable of performing now. It would appear that a high-end smartphone should outperform a Cray X-MP supercomputer from the s within the next few months, if not already Many smartphones outperform the Cray 1 already at floating point. I wonder which is faster: Bluetooth or mag tape? Near-field communication or modems? I like to saw logs! The section Hardware costs includes a table of milestones, and a heading paragraph which doesn't match the table.
If there are no objections, I'd like to rewrite that heading paragraph to more accurately describe the content it introduces. The PlayStation 4 was not available in June The earliest release date was in November in North America and Europe, and then three months later in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. I made the following changes:. When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
This article seems to be more about the use of the term than the term itself. I see no history of the term. I am interested in who invented the term. I think IBM invented the term the idea or whatever to provide a more useful comparison of their processors compared to Amdahl and other competitors.
Sam Tomato talk If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. Since "geo" is not an official SI prefix, it's highly doubtful — and indeed not possible for avoidance of ambiguity — that "G" would be used to abbreviate "geo".
I'm going to remove last two abbreviations from the table for both "bronto" and "geo" , as both are unofficial prefixes and as such don't have official abbreviations. The list of cost per GFLOP starts with supercomputers which were the absolute fastest of their time, then switches to clusters of commodity hardware, and then to console and PC hardware.
All of these are different types of computers, and it is misleading to compare FLOPs between them. A supercomputer for example is more expensive per FLOP, but offers the biggest absolute computing power at a given time in one system, and meets much higher stability and availability requirements compared to a PC. Further, even ignoring this over-simplification, the cost per GFLOP numbers from the last years are misleading. I suggest to either rework the section to give a more realistic view on the cost of computing power i.
That's good enough for me. Anyway, there's GDDR6 for i. This, i dont really care whats inside the box aslong as it plays games much improved from what is already a great console.
Is there some gene that you have active extra chromosome? And it may be important to note that this whole generation is targeting AMD hardware for performance, no one's going Nvidia for consoles.
Killzone Shadowfall looked pretty damn good, considering everything that was happening. The lighting, sheer polygon count, and cleanliness of the image was what struck me the most, though I wouldn't consider it any better than Crysis 3, but the PS4's graphics will get better with time.
I may get one, but I probably won't, as I'm a PC guy myself. Please Log In to post. This topic is locked from further discussion. BlbecekBobecek Follow Forum Posts: Its more powerful than: GeForce GTX 1. Cali Follow Forum Posts: P ps3 old friend, i'll be keeping mine but its very much time to look forward now. Rocker6 Follow Forum Posts: Sushiglutton Follow Forum Posts: Jebus Follow Forum Posts: No, apparently mid-range cards do that. Rocker6 Yeah but its the best data we have for comparison.
BlbecekBobecek Yeah but its the best data we have for comparison. Regardless of anything, this console is a beast and is everything that I have been hoping for in terms of power. If everything holds true then the ps4 is in a great position: According to that it must mean the is more than two times the power of a GTX Contrary to that the GTX is quite a bit more powerful than a Those are the double precision specs.
RyviusARC Double precision vs single precision. Double precision vs single precision. Both are single precision. SaltyMeatballs Follow Forum Posts: CwlHeddwyn Follow Forum Posts: KingKinect Follow Forum Posts: I think both of the stats were with single precision but if not my point still stands. Inconsistancy Follow Forum Posts: It's a theoretical limit that is never reached in real world performance.
The GTX is closer to it's performance. PS4 can't do that because it has to worry about power consumption and temperature. The extra 1GB would be used for certain purposes like the OS and other functions. When next gen consoles arrive that will change. I remember in the gen before that when I could run most games on mbs of system memory. Then this gen we have some games using over 2GBs of system memory.
I can easily get Skyrim to use over 3GBs of system memory. I don't want to bash the PS4. Heil68 Follow Forum Posts: