I just emailed that project (SpiNNaker) this week. Got a kind reply back from Simon Davidson, a research fellow there, who generously gave the following knowledge:
…
As you may have read, the SpiNNaker software stack has been designed for networks specified using a Python-based API called PyNN. So if you are simulating spiking neural networks and can express them in this framework, the task is straightforward. To do your own framework means working at a much lower level with the machine and is a more serious undertaking. We have knowledge of the HTM approach and members of the teams have discussed the theory with Jeff Hawkin at various conferences. Implementing an HTM on SpiNNaker is certainly possible but you would not be able to make use of much of our software infra-structure beyond the low level APIs and hardware management libraries (SARK and SCAMP),To get right the heart of your questions, we do sell the 48-node SpiNNaker board and also grant free access to our one million core machine in Manchester (UK) via the HBP portal. Despite the fact this latter route would limit your networks to those expressible with the PyNN language, it would allow you to get a feel for SpiNNaker and help you to decide if it is for you before committing anything further. Here is a link to some of our training material, which also contains information on the HBP portal and how to register to access the hardware for free:
For a non-academic entity, the boards themselves cost about £10K plus your local sales tax. That’s about $12.5K (plus tax) at today’s exchange rate. Not something one would normally investing in for personal use. But if you want to go that route we can give you a quote.
…
So, if one were to use that hardware, we’d either have to implement HTM using the PyNN framework (doesn’t look like a quick or easy fit), or design a new, specific framework on top of that hardware.
I think it’s worth checking out custom implementations of hardware acceleration via FPGAs first, before going down the rabit hole of trying to use SpiNNaker 
, but let’s get some more people united on this topic and see what we can come up with.
@marty1885, @jacobeverist, @gmirey and others, let’s try to come up with an agreed (mostly) upon implementation idea, and see if we can flesh this out.
I outlined some ideas here, but let’s get this knocked down.
The main goal is 10hz, which gives us a time budget of 100ms to complete a full timestep of processing. If we can process pulls in 50-70ms, then we’ll have another 20-30ms of time for data transmission between machines. While not easy, it seems doable.