Satish, thanks for that. [/immense sarcasm] I guess you didn't read my question. Yes, I realise it's a TeraFlop. It's also perfectly reasonable to capitalise FLOPS, as it stands for FLoating Operations Per Second.
I ask the question again: if a single PS3 theoretically pumps out 2 TFLOPS, is it feasible for around 250 PS3s to be linked together and beat this supercomputer?
"is it feasible for around 250 PS3s to be linked together and beat this supercomputer?" -- it is sort of being done already check it out folding @home is now avalible for PS3s
Yes, a cluster of enough PS3's could beat this computer in number of flops.....but only in number. All flops are not created equal. the complexity of calculations those ps3's can handle are very limited due to their architecture. In practice, all of those ps3's would come nowhere near the power of the BlueGene/L.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Satish, thanks for that. [/immense sarcasm] I guess you didn't read my question. Yes, I realise it's a TeraFlop. It's also perfectly reasonable to capitalise FLOPS, as it stands for FLoating Operations Per Second.
I ask the question again: if a single PS3 theoretically pumps out 2 TFLOPS, is it feasible for around 250 PS3s to be linked together and beat this supercomputer?
"is it feasible for around 250 PS3s to be linked together and beat this supercomputer?" -- it is sort of being done already check it out folding @home is now avalible for PS3s
http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup/folding/FAQ-PS3.html
Yes, a cluster of enough PS3's could beat this computer in number of flops.....but only in number. All flops are not created equal. the complexity of calculations those ps3's can handle are very limited due to their architecture. In practice, all of those ps3's would come nowhere near the power of the BlueGene/L.