| ▲ | The Cray-1 Computer System (1977) [pdf](s3data.computerhistory.org) |
| 34 points by LordGrey 3 days ago | 16 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | ggm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| to deploy a 2nd hand Cray-1 at UQ, we had to raise the ex-IBM 3033 floor, it turned out the bend radius for flourinert was NOT the same as a water cooled machine. We also installed a voltage re-generator which is basically a huge spinning mass, you convert Australian volts to DC, spin the machine, and take off re-generated high frequency volts for the cray, as well as 110v on the right hz for boring stuff alongside. the main bit ran off something like 400hz power, for some reason the CPU needed faster mains volts going in. The flourinert tank has a ball valve, like a toilet cistern. we hung a plastic lobster in ours, because we called the cray "Yabbie" (Queensland freshwater crayfish) That re-generator, the circuit breakers are .. touchy. the installation engineer nearly wet his trousers flipping on, the spark-bang was immense. Brown trouser moment. The front end access was Unisys X11 Unix terminals. They were built like a brick shithouse (to use the australianism) but were a nice machine. I did the acceptance testing, it included running up X11 and compiling and running the largest Conways game of life design I could find on the net. Seemed to run well. We got the machine as a tax-offset for a large Boeing purchase by Australian defence. End of life, one of the operators got the love-seat and turned it into a wardrobe in his bedroom. Another, more boring cray got installed at department of primary industries (Qld government) to do crops and weather modelling. The post cray-1 stuff was .. more ordinary. Circular compute unit was a moment in time. (I think I've posted most of this to HN before) |
| |
| ▲ | kev009 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | There a lot of discussion here https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/7412/why-... but nothing seems conclusive.. I would wager the last answer, "IBM was using 400Hz", to be most directly causal reason. The motor-generator configuration might provide galvanic isolation and some immunity to spikes and transients as well? | |
| ▲ | bilegeek 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > the main bit ran off something like 400hz power, for some reason the CPU needed faster mains volts going in. Aerospace originally did that to reduce component size, CDC and IBM took advantage of the standard in the early 60's. Strangely, it seems mainframes didn't adopt switching power supplies until the end of the 70's, despite the tech being around since the end of the 60's. | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | 400 Hz is really the next best thing to a switching supply, as the transformers and filter capacitors can be smaller than they would need to be at 50/60 Hz. It can save cost and space for filter capacitors, especially in a three-phase system where there's not as much ripple to deal with. Another rationale may have been that the flywheel on the motor-generator would cover a multitude of power-quality sins. |
|
|
| ▲ | october8140 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The aesthetics of the machine have not been neglected. The CPU is attractively housed in a cylindrical cabinet. The chassis are arranged two per each of the twelve wedge-shaped columns. At the base are the twelve power supplies. The power supply cabinets, which extend outward from the base are vinyl padded to provide seating for computer personnel. |
|
| ▲ | effnorwood an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Blew my mind age 4. Then found out about the imos transputer. And robotics magazine. 70's were popping. Ponging? |
| |
| ▲ | lukeh 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | XMOS is still keeping the Inmos dream alive, more or less! | |
| ▲ | SirIsaacGluten an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Inmos not imos, if my memory cells serve ne correctly. I lived overseas at the time, so I did not hear about the Cray till like 1980/81. My friend (we were like 12) had an idea to write a simulator for digital circuits, and I was puzzled as to why you would want to simulate a circuit when you can build it and test it. He was way ahead of his time. |
|
|
| ▲ | LordGrey 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Opening paragraph: > The Cray Research, Inc. CRAY-1 Computer System is a large-scale, general-purpose digital computer featuring vector as well as scalar processing, a 12.5 nanosecond clock period, and a 50 nanosecond memory cycle time. The CRAY-1 is capable of executing over 80 million floating point operations per second. |
| |
| ▲ | twoodfin an hour ago | parent [-] | | The CRAY-1 was so ridiculously ahead of its time that it took until the Pentium MMX (1997) for “ordinary” computers to catch up to its raw performance. That’s 20 years or about 10,000X the available VLSI transistors via Moore’s Law. | | |
| ▲ | firecall an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I wonder how many times faster my iPhone 17 Pro Max is? Sometimes I like to remind myself we are living in the future. A future that seemed like SciFi when I was a kid in the 70s! Sadly I don’t think we will ever see Warp Drives, Time Travel or World Peace. But we might get Jet Packs! | | |
| ▲ | wmoxam a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | Recently I've found myself wanting a tricorder type device. | |
| ▲ | hypersoar 10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | From the Wikipedia article on the Cray 1: "The 160 MFLOPS Cray-1 was succeeded in 1982 by the 800 MFLOPS Cray X-MP, the first Cray multi-processing computer. In 1985, the very advanced Cray-2, capable of 1.9 GFLOPS peak performance ... By comparison, the processor in a typical 2013 smart device, such as a Google Nexus 10 or HTC One, performs at roughly 1 GFLOPS,[6] while the A13 processor in a 2019 iPhone 11 performs at 154.9 GFLOPS,[7] a mark supercomputers succeeding the Cray-1 would not reach until 1994." | |
| ▲ | FridayoLeary 25 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | At the risk of sounding cliche i'll point out that ios probably uses several times the capacity of a cray 1 just to get the keyboard to work. |
| |
| ▲ | fnord77 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not terribly impressive considering an average 20 year old super computer c. 2005 is still about 100x as fast as today's best consumer cpus | | |
|
|