If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Another AMD supercomputer, 13,000 quad-core
The new computer, to be built by Sun Microsystems Inc. using 13,000
microprocessors made by Advanced Micro Devices Inc., will be more powerful than any supercomputer currently in operation, UT says. It will have a peak computing power of more than 400 trillion operations per second, which makes it more than 40 percent faster than the current supercomputing speed champ, Blue Gene/L, developed by IBM Corp. for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. http://www.statesman.com/business/co...9computer.html -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Another AMD supercomputer, 13,000 quad-core
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:22:41 -0500, .Some.Guy.
wrote: The new computer, to be built by Sun Microsystems Inc. using 13,000 microprocessors made by Advanced Micro Devices Inc., will be more powerful than any supercomputer currently in operation, UT says. It will have a peak computing power of more than 400 trillion operations per second, which makes it more than 40 percent faster than the current supercomputing speed champ, Blue Gene/L, developed by IBM Corp. for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. http://www.statesman.com/business/co...9computer.html ....which will result in a nice uptick in overall Opteron sales. Hmm, what kind of frame rate this thing will reach in [your favorite game here]? ;-) NNN |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Another AMD supercomputer, 13,000 quad-core
..Some.Guy. wrote:
The new computer, to be built by Sun Microsystems Inc. using 13,000 microprocessors made by Advanced Micro Devices Inc., will be more powerful than any supercomputer currently in operation, UT says. It will have a peak computing power of more than 400 trillion operations per second, which makes it more than 40 percent faster than the current supercomputing speed champ, Blue Gene/L, developed by IBM Corp. for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. http://www.statesman.com/business/co...9computer.html It seems so simple to put together a supercomputer these days. Just put tons and tons of processors on. 10 000 here, 12 000 there, 13 000 here, 15 000 there, etc. Yousuf Khan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Another AMD supercomputer, 13,000 quad-core
Yousuf Khan wrote: It seems so simple to put together a supercomputer these days. Just put tons and tons of processors on. 10 000 here, 12 000 there, 13 000 here, 15 000 there, etc. Yousuf Khan once you get over about 1000 CPUs, you also keep adding air conditioners to keep the build cool..... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Another AMD supercomputer, 13,000 quad-core
ditto. the cooling on that joker fails and it would go up like the 4th
of july! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Another AMD supercomputer, 13,000 quad-core
Yousuf Khan wrote:
It seems so simple to put together a supercomputer these days. Just put tons and tons of processors on. 10 000 here, 12 000 there, 13 000 here, 15 000 there, etc. Just so, and it has been so for a long time. "Supercomputers" are now more about real estate than about technology or cleverness. Buy yourself a big warehouse, lots of cable, and some switches. You will probaby also need to speak to your local electrical utility about your needs. The action isn't in the processors anymore. It's partly in the interconnect, which is why Opteron is so attractive for building supercomputers that can actually do something. It's also in power consumption, which is why x86 clones (nor Itanium) may not be the future of supercomputers. RM |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Another AMD supercomputer, 13,000 quad-core
On 25 Oct 2006 10:26:32 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote: It seems so simple to put together a supercomputer these days. Just put tons and tons of processors on. 10 000 here, 12 000 there, 13 000 here, 15 000 there, etc. Just so, and it has been so for a long time. "Supercomputers" are now more about real estate than about technology or cleverness. Buy yourself a big warehouse, lots of cable, and some switches. You will probaby also need to speak to your local electrical utility about your needs. The action isn't in the processors anymore. It's partly in the interconnect, which is why Opteron is so attractive for building supercomputers that can actually do something. It's also in power consumption, which is why x86 clones (nor Itanium) may not be the future of supercomputers. Hey Robert - haven't heard from you here in a while. Trouble is, nobody, not even the U.S. taxpayer, can afford a new custom architecture and CPU design... which is going to be obsolete the day it first starts "crunching". I believe that even the Japanese have finally come to the same conclusion. Maybe the Chinese, with their uncanny ability to hide epxense, will bite??:-) -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Another AMD supercomputer, 13,000 quad-core
George Macdonald wrote:
Hey Robert - haven't heard from you here in a while. My surplus U2 didn't come equipped with an internet connection. Trouble is, nobody, not even the U.S. taxpayer, can afford a new custom architecture and CPU design... which is going to be obsolete the day it first starts "crunching". I believe that even the Japanese have finally come to the same conclusion. Maybe the Chinese, with their uncanny ability to hide epxense, will bite??:-) But specialized coprocessors are not out of reach. Folding at Home is doing great things with GPU's. Of course, saying "oh, we'll use coprocessors" is just another version of the interconnect problem, but it may be the only practical solution to the power consumption problem and the only solution at all to the class of problems that appears to concern you: problems with a long critical path. Robert. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Another AMD supercomputer, 13,000 quad-core
George Macdonald wrote:
snip Trouble is, nobody, not even the U.S. taxpayer, can afford a new custom architecture and CPU design... which is going to be obsolete the day it first starts "crunching". I believe that even the Japanese have finally come to the same conclusion. Maybe the Chinese, with their uncanny ability to hide epxense, will bite??:-) Sure, all kinds of people can afford such a design. What's it cost? Couple of Billion, or half of a fab? The Government (US Government that is) takes in about 2500 Gigabucks per year and spends somewhat more. The feds could afford an new state of the art architecture and set of chips and boxes with the chips without breaking a sweat. It would be cheap compared to developing an manufacturing a new fighter plane, or a new destroyer. On the other hand, even the government would have to have a semi valid reason for doing so, and it isn't clear that there is one. Although Cray and their vector processors are an interesting data point. -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions.” |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Another AMD supercomputer, 13,000 quad-core
Del Cecchi wrote:
On the other hand, even the government would have to have a semi valid reason for doing so, and it isn't clear that there is one. Although Cray and their vector processors are an interesting data point. When the Cray-1 first came out, people talked overenthusiastically about numerical wind tunnels and stunning computer animations and graphics. The company I worked for closed a lab without a second thought on the not entirely-incorrect theory that fluid mechanical experiments were mostly a thing of the past. Funny thing is, most of those predictions have come true, just not in the way or on the time scale anyone would have expected at the time. A similar development in biotechnology would have all the floor space around MIT filled with computational scientists instead of wet chemists. We're no further away from that than we were from a numerical wind tunnel when people spoke glibly of such a thing, but people talk much more cautiously now than they did then. It's about vision and pizazz, not transistors, and the annual supercomputer linpack ho-hum hasn't helped. Robert. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Venice vs. Manchester core? | DRS | Overclocking AMD Processors | 2 | May 26th 06 01:22 PM |
Athlon 64 Dual or Single Core ? | Magnusfarce | Homebuilt PC's | 7 | October 30th 05 12:32 AM |
the inquierer posting a little news about new core | ewan | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | February 7th 05 05:54 PM |
Quad Cpu Mobo with Dual Core CPUS how fast would that be ? | We Live for the One we Die for the One | General | 0 | June 14th 04 10:16 PM |
CPU Core Voltage Too Low -> Crash? | Edward J. Neth | Gateway Computers | 27 | February 22nd 04 04:38 AM |