NTMBK wrote:I see "supercomputer" as a function of form factor, not compute power. Given Moore's Law, any classification based on compute power becomes meaningless very quickly. Do we call this mobile phone in my pocket a supercomputer, because it is inarguably more powerful than old Cray supercomputers? Does this laptop qualify as a desktop, because it blows an old Core 2 Duo system out of the water? Where do you stop? I base the classification on physical size and power consumption.
That goes too far the other way. Compute power still needs to factor into it somehow; otherwise the device pictured below would arguably qualify as a supercomputer. Physical size, power consumption, and
compute power relative to other contemporary systems all need to be criteria.
Front (lots of electro-mechanical relays):
Back (banks of large wire-wound resistors, lots and lots of wires):
Closeup of part of the rack in the foreground of the first pic:
Bonus points to anyone who can identify what the above piece of gear was used for.
Hint: It was still in daily use up until about 10 years ago, and was in operation when those pics were taken (circa 2005). Based on the amount of heat that was coming off the resistor banks I guesstimate that the power consumption was well into the kilowatts. And no, even when it was new it would not have been considered a "supercomputer".
(Sorry for the low-res photos, I seem to have misplaced the originals and don't have time to go spelunking through old backups right now.)