IBM Advanced Computer Systems project: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:21, 3 June 2024

Revision as of 00:25, 3 June 2024

Line 45:

Bloch selected Carl Conti from IBM Poughkeepsie to handle the review, which occurred in March 1968. Amdahl presented performance estimates based on hand-calculated cycle counts. Conti accepted Amdahl's arguments that on integer benchmarks, the AEC/360 would be up to five times as fast as the ASC-1, it would be up to 2.5 times slower on floating-point, and the complex branching system of ASC seemed to offer 10 to 20% at best and could be adapted to the AEC if desired. But a key point made by Conti was that if the ASC system was so reliant on the compilers for its performance, moving that code to some other machine could result in far different outcomes and that could be considered a disadvantage.{{sfn|Smotherman|Sussenguth|Robelen|2016|p=67}} He also concluded that while the AEC would be closer to 108,000 gates, it was still half as complex as the ASC.{{sfn|Conway|2011|p=27}}

A final review was performed in April, but this was brief and seemingly already decided. In May, IBM announced the ASC-1 would be cancelled and the AEC/360, to be known as the ASC-360 from that point, would move forward. Although Amdahl's competitioncompeting design had much to do with this, it was not the only reason. Amdahl had also argued that the $15 million would better be spent on improving the operating systems on the 360, which would improve the entire lineup, not just the AEC. But perhaps the most serious blow to the ASC was the continued success of the S/360. In January 1968, [[NASA]] had taken delivery of a 360 Model 95, which IBM described as "the fastest, most powerful computer now in user operation."{{sfn|Smotherman|Sussenguth|Robelen|2016|p=67}} Although the ASC would have outperformed the Model 95 by a wide margin, by this time Watson Jr. was considering withdrawing from the supercomputer market entirely.{{sfn|Conway|2011|p=29}}

Many of the retrospective articles on the ASC project note that the original machine would have been a world leader. Conway notes that "In hindsight, it is now recognized that had the ACS-1 been successfully built, it would have been the premier supercomputer of the era."{{sfn|Conway|2011|p=20}} The decision to cancel the original design rested mostly on the cycle counts which had not been tested as the simulator she had developed had not been ported.{{sfn|Conway|2011|p=20}} Likewise, Amdahl's claim of an 8 nanosecond cycle was accepted by the Conti review although Mark Smotherman suggests it is not realistic.{{sfn|Smotherman|Sussenguth|Robelen|2016|p=67}}