Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NASA/ SGI SC beats ALL - NEC to beat ALL again

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 27, 2004 6:56:39 AM

<A HREF="http://news.com.com/SGI+supercomputer+two+records+in+on..." target="_new">http://news.com.com/SGI+supercomputer+two+records+in+on...;/A>
Nasa's new SC consisting of 20 clustered computers, ie a total of ~10K Itaniums with 9MB cache is now top of the list beating NEC Earth sim and IBMs Blue Gene(note this when completed will go upto 360 TF)
Columbia clocked a massive 42.07 TF when using only 16 clusters, and clocked 51.9 TF with all 20 running.

If we somehow get F@H running on that ie 10K instances of it, we can beat google in a few days :lol: 

:tongue: <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/priyajeet/fing.jpg" target="_new"><i><font color=red>Very funny, Scotty.</font color=red><font color=blue> Now beam down my clothes.</font color=blue></i></A> :tongue: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by priyajeet on 10/28/04 02:21 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 27, 2004 12:55:01 PM

Yah for Itanium!!!

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
October 27, 2004 2:56:01 PM

Indeed. Lots of expensive Intel processors sold. I'm just surprised by the amount that this supercomputer beats the old #1. And just in time for that list in November. :) 

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
Related resources
October 27, 2004 2:57:39 PM

Wow! And that's with the old Madison core.

Montecito will probably eat FP records for breakfast... Itanium's FP capability never goes without being noted! Quite impressive.

Too bad it costs so much. If it didn't, more acessibility would mean more software porting, which would only be good. Such a floating-point-operation devouring-monster should be a welcome thing anytime.
October 27, 2004 3:13:30 PM

Thats where Blue Genes steps in. They are gonna be small, they are gonna be cheap, they gonna use very less power and they gonna be 6x faster when done ~360 TF

They have already beaten the NEC Earthsim (that was a beta project. the Nov 8 list will tell whos on top IBM or NASA) with like 1/20~1/16 the size and power usage. They are using powerpc 970s i think.

:tongue: <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/priyajeet/fing.jpg" target="_new"><i><font color=red>Very funny, Scotty.</font color=red><font color=blue> Now beam down my clothes.</font color=blue></i></A> :tongue:
October 27, 2004 5:23:57 PM

Thanks for the link. Nice pics. Plus 440 terabytes of data.
October 27, 2004 5:24:49 PM

That's what you need where you work.
October 27, 2004 5:25:22 PM

One heck of a gaming server. :smile:
October 27, 2004 6:33:02 PM

well if not gaming, then for scientific purposes other than mass dstruction. many others are used for crappy purposes like WMD simulation.

:tongue: <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/priyajeet/fing.jpg" target="_new"><i><font color=red>Very funny, Scotty.</font color=red><font color=blue> Now beam down my clothes.</font color=blue></i></A> :tongue:
October 27, 2004 9:06:41 PM

Look on the bright side, simulations reduce real world WMD tests.

About blue gene... I'm seriously tempted to start some kind of ridiculous conspiracy theory like, blue gene is a project to enable the government to devlop a new gene that will make the human race more cold tolerant for the coming ice age caused by global warming. I wonder how many people I could get to believe that...

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
October 27, 2004 9:22:02 PM

I believe! I believe! :wink:

Mike.
October 27, 2004 9:36:03 PM

I know this is kinda stupid but what is the aprox. cost of this and who is paying for it? and i know you can rent time on some supercomputers what would that run?
Does anyone know?

i dont mean to be stupid....it comes naturally

__________________________________________

2nd place....by 50pts and Beat Auburn by 36pts
October 27, 2004 9:48:06 PM

I don't think that's stupid personally... I don't know what the specific costs to rent time on this system is, but I remember a few years back, gateway setup a grid and their charges were something like $450/hr to use it. I would imagine this would cost a helluva lot more.

I'd like to know what this costs per hour in electricity, just to run the thing.

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
October 27, 2004 10:01:51 PM

Quote:
10,240 Itanium processors

How much would that cost?

They should do some DoomIII benchies :wink:

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x11 (~2.2Ghz), 1.55 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL/1x512Mb Corsair XMS PC4000 2.5-3-3-7
Sapphire 9800Pro (VGA Silencer Rev3) @400/730
October 28, 2004 1:52:05 AM

taht would be so overkill for any games lol, and since no smp support, youd see nother great lol.

but think of running 10,000 instances of doom3 :p 
October 28, 2004 2:44:39 AM

What about each cpu render 1 pixel of the screen?

Click <font color=blue><A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">HERE</A></font color=blue> if you real<b>l</b>y are an <font color=red>idiot</font color=red>.
October 28, 2004 3:08:51 AM

That's still too many pixels for too few processors. Even a low-res VGA render has 300 thousand pixels... :frown:
October 28, 2004 7:16:01 AM

more news. NEC is planning (or maybe already has internally secretly) to reclaim the title by NEC SX-8, theritically planned to achieve 65 TF. Monthly rental of that will be ~$11K.
<A HREF="http://in.rediff.com/money/2004/oct/20nec.htm" target="_new">http://in.rediff.com/money/2004/oct/20nec.htm&lt;/A>
<A HREF="http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;402047683;fp;2;fpid;1" target="_new">http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;402047683;fp;2;fpid;1</A>

Apparantly Blue Gene is supposed to be cheap. Thats y its gonna rock. Smaller, cooler, faster. Rental/cost figures arent given yet, but IBM upto today has spent like $4B in super computing. Blue Gene once done will start a new breed called Ultra Computers.

:tongue: <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/priyajeet/fing.jpg" target="_new"><i><font color=red>Very funny, Scotty.</font color=red><font color=blue> Now beam down my clothes.</font color=blue></i></A> :tongue:
October 28, 2004 7:23:04 PM

Actualy Itanium is by far the cheapest CPU in the supercomputer market.


i need to change useur name.
October 29, 2004 12:09:01 AM

1 on 1 sure, but clusters make that point moot as performance is rated by collective power, so if someoen builds an system using enough itaniums, sure it could beat out another, but there is a limit to how many a comapny is going to buy. if blue gene is cheaper and performs as it should, youll be seeing more adoption of it then itanium id say.
October 29, 2004 7:35:00 PM

X1 SX6 SX8 bluegeneLL are vector processeur much closer to a VPU that a superscalar CPU.They deal very badly with branch and data that cannot be put in package.The list of application that run well on those type of CPU are really short.On the others side they are terrefic went it come to memory operation.For exemple just look how a P4 react on sisoft under scalar ops and vector ops |(SSE2)| it score on memory stream is much higher on SSE2 that scalar X87.

A geforce FX 6800 have 28 Gflop compare that to the 12 of a I2 picture is even worst if compare to X86 chip.

i need to change useur name.
October 29, 2004 9:48:15 PM

Quote:
The list of application that run well on those type of CPU are really short.

That's true, in general. But take something like meterology, complex simulations, even 3-d rendering, and if all other things are equal, vector processing systems are better suited. Blue gene is going to be a huge hit in the scientific community. That's my opinion anyway.

Not trying to knock I2 at all by saying this. Itanium does some things very well, but some of the most interesting scientific problems vastly benefit from high speed vector processing.

NECs earth simulator, for example, uses vector processors. Even though the raw numbers for this new Itanium cluster are higher, there will still be things the earth simulator is far better suited for. And vice versa of course.

We are, after all, talking about a synthetic benchmark. If people think you have to pick your desktop processor now based on the apps you'll be running(video encoding, intel, games, amd, etc...), just wait till you're in a scientific environment trying to spec out a super computer. You can not just go by those benchmarks, or you can really hose your project.

<i>Nemo me impune lacesset</i>
October 29, 2004 11:01:34 PM

but will an itanium 2 system be cheaper then say the blue gene system? From what I saw it would be the other way around, the blue gene's power coming in cheap systems that when clustered gave great performance.
!