Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mac Supercomputer.

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Supercomputer
  • Macintosh
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 10, 2003 8:39:45 PM

Using 1100 G5'S Now talk about attidude problems. That will blow up the whole Virginia Tech Campus. What a way to go.

More about : mac supercomputer

September 10, 2003 8:56:39 PM

LOL

yea i kinda thought that that ad was pretty dumb. Its not what Apple should be doing. they need a differnt aproach.

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
September 10, 2003 9:49:45 PM

I'm not familiar with the details but are they just putting 1100 PPC 970 processors together or actually using Apple's overpriced G5 boxes? If the former, I'm kind of happy to see such a good processor be put to good use, if the latter, well, UV has enough money I suppose, who cares if they got ripped off.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
Related resources
September 10, 2003 11:40:03 PM

The new articule is on HardOCP.
September 11, 2003 2:45:58 AM

I think that putting together 1100 Itanium 2s at 1.4Ghz and for $1100 each CPU would probably cost less and churn out more data... if they are smart enough to change compilers once in a while! Plus, talk about scaling. G5 boxes will probably scale poorly, and you IA-64 could always be arranged as 275 nodes of 4 processors each and an amount of memory so absurd that it would make G5s shy. (Apple touts "up to a whopping 8GB"; each Itanium 2 4 processor-node can hold up to 128GB... I hope they are merely using 1100 PPC 970 processors and scaling them with some specific tech... Even so, the PPC970 is not that robust, anyway.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 11, 2003 2:49:17 AM

Oh my... just checked. They're indeed getting 1100 G5 boxes. That sounds stupid. What kind of scaling technology are they considering? A network? My god... Maybe I'm overlooking something... I hope I am...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 11, 2003 3:13:51 AM

Yeh, I wonder how scalable are their MP setups, compared to HT Opterons and Itanium 2 servers with near-perfect scalability!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 11, 2003 3:49:08 AM

Cheap That's all
September 11, 2003 4:33:06 AM

Well, if they're doing rendering clusters or distributed computing, it could scale very well as the data sets would be almost entirely in cache and definitely entirely in memory. Of course, even so, those machines probably would've cost more total than a couple of SGI Altix or HP Superdomes and those would've put out more results.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
September 11, 2003 2:27:46 PM

Okay, it's a supercomputer of G5s.

The question should be: Is that a win for Apple or a Win for IBM?

I mean it <i>is</i> an IBM chip in there. Would we call a supercomputer of Itaniums a win for HP just because they were the OEM that put the machines together, or a win for Intel because they're the ones who made the technology?

Something to think about.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
September 11, 2003 6:37:49 PM

Mac Supercomputer - Definition - Oxymoron.

Shadus
September 11, 2003 8:27:24 PM

Ok do we have to be techno or not?
September 12, 2003 7:19:13 PM

it doens't realy matter... Intel and HP would win... and IBM and Apple would win...

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
September 12, 2003 7:19:15 PM

it doens't realy matter... Intel and HP would win... and IBM and Apple would win...

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
September 13, 2003 8:33:41 PM

"The G5 is not that robust anyway"

Ummmm....ok.

Have any of you actually read the reasons that the G5 was chosen?

Have you any idea what kind of FPU performance they are going to get with this system, which is what the G5 excels at and is what scientific applications call for?

I don't understand the blind hatred people show towards Apple, do you people show the same vitriol towards toaster makers or car companys?

It's just a computer, people, and if you have actually researched or read the reasons that VTU chose the G5, it came down to **shocker** price and performance.

I use both platforms, but lately some of the PC crowd are more zealous and pompous than the Mac crowd is.



"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 13, 2003 8:40:10 PM

"Mac Supercomputer - Definition - Oxymoron."


For anyone who actually cares about objectivity, vs. platform bigotry, here's some objective, neutral benchmarks on an UN-OPTIMIZED G5, used in a type of scenario which is completely relevant to the Virginia Tech situation:

http://members.cox.net/craig.hunter/g5/



"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 13, 2003 10:46:13 PM

I didn't read the whole article, but the chart shows a P4 2.66 on par with a G5 2 GHz.

IIRC the 2 GHz is Apple's fastest, while P4 is available up to 3.2 GHz.
September 13, 2003 11:18:10 PM

"I didn't read the whole article, but the chart shows a P4 2.66 on par with a G5 2 GHz.

IIRC the 2 GHz is Apple's fastest, while P4 is available up to 3.2 GHz."


Quite true, however that just brings up a couple of relevant factors mentioned in the study.

Since the G5 was so new, the code was not optimized, and he estimated that optimized code would bring up the G5 another 20% or so (bringing the single G5 2.0 very close in performance to the single P4 3.2).

IBM has also released a new compiler for the G5 which brings up the speed on an order of anywhere from 60 to 120 percent.....the G5 hasn't even come close to having it's potential tapped yet.

Now extrapolate the performance of the Dual G5, and you have a clear winner, and the P4 is not capable of multiple processsors (you have to go to the Xeon).


The point I'm trying to make here is that the G5 is a very strong chip, and the reason it was chosen for the VTU cluster was based on price/performance.

"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 14, 2003 1:56:05 AM

>>>Not trying to start any wars there are you, you damn hypocrite?<<<


Again, like I said in that thread, if you have something positive to contribute, then please do so.

You do know that you can debate and discuss differences without resorting to swearing and insults, don't you?

Some people are capable of discussing the relative merits of Macs and PC's without getting into personal insults and flames.






"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 14, 2003 1:59:29 AM

"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 15, 2003 3:26:01 AM

hey americanflats figure you seem very adimit about Macs...

thought that <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">this poll</A> could use your Vote and you could get a good feel for who feels what in here about the apple and the G5

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
!