[ajsnigrutin]

There is no difference anymore, the only difference is the scale.

Back then, consumers got nothing, governments got largge computers (room sized+), then consumers got microcomputers (desktop sized), governments got larger mainframes, consumers got PCs, government got big-box supercomputers,...

And now? Consumers get x86_64 servers, governments get x86_64 servers, and the only difference is how much money you have, how many servers can you buy and how much space, energy and cooling you need to run them.

well, "normal users" get laptops and smartphones, but geek-consumers buy servers... and yeah, I know arm is an alternative.

[tavavex]

I'd argue that the difference is the price. There is still quite a bit of a difference between average consumer and business hardware, but compute power is cheap enough that the average person can afford what was previously only reserved for large companies. The average "consumer computer" nowadays is an ARM smartphone, and while server equipment is purchasable, you can't exactly hit up your local electronics store to buy a server rack or a server CPU. You can still get those things quite easily, but I wouldn't say their main goal is being sold to individuals.

[creer]

Let's not go too far either. Money and determination still buys results. A disposable government system might be stuffed with large FPGAs, ASICs and other exotics. Which would rarely be found in any consumer system - certainly not in quantity. A government system might pour a lot of money in the design of these and the cost of each unit. So, perhaps not much difference for each standard CPU and computer node but still as much difference as ever in the rest?

[codezero]

I was asking about anyone tracking the disparity between nation-state computing power and commercially available computing power. This seems like something that's uncontroversial.

[creer]

"Nation state" doesn't mean "country". It certainly doesn't mean "rich country".