Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD-powered Jaguar is 'Fastest Supercomputer'

Last response: in News comments
Share
November 16, 2009 3:10:56 PM

one of the many remarkable achievements; brought to you by AMD :) 
Score
29
November 16, 2009 3:11:23 PM

That is insane. I would like to see a price tag for that much power
Score
20
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 16, 2009 3:11:31 PM

zipzoomflyhighCan it play Crysis though?

Probably without any help from a GPU.
Score
22
November 16, 2009 3:11:41 PM

HOT DAMN!
Score
5
November 16, 2009 3:12:41 PM

Quote:
Can it play Crysis though?

That joke it's old and I think I hate it!
Score
27
November 16, 2009 3:13:16 PM

Would be great to type up my word documents on
Score
21
November 16, 2009 3:17:13 PM

zipzoomflyhighCan it play Crysis though?


deadcatThat joke it's old and I think I hate it!


We ALL hate it!!!
Score
23
November 16, 2009 3:20:00 PM

I wonder how much of that computing power they actually use at one time. It seems to me that the way applications are written these days 222,162 threads would be hard to use.
Score
1
November 16, 2009 3:20:33 PM

"petaflops per second"

Redundant. FLOPS = FLoating point Operations Per Second.
Score
21
November 16, 2009 3:21:25 PM

Dammit, stop saying petaflops per second.
Score
9
Anonymous
November 16, 2009 3:24:59 PM

papasmurfI wonder how much of that computing power they actually use at one time. It seems to me that the way applications are written these days 222,162 threads would be hard to use.


Um, they aren't spending millions and millions of dollars JUST for epeen inches. The scientific applications for which these kinds of computers are used can in fact utilize most of the available CPU time.
Score
11
November 16, 2009 3:27:00 PM

Get the media to stop calling it the HIV virus, too, while you are at it.
Score
7
November 16, 2009 3:28:43 PM

2 points to AMD
Score
7
November 16, 2009 3:30:38 PM

this just sounds awsome, hopefully it is used for the good of humanity.
P.S: hopefully doen't take over the world lol
Score
3
November 16, 2009 3:33:00 PM

I think petaflops per second would be a measure of acceleration - That would be pretty impressive:
1.759 * 10^15 operations per second per second; it out to be up in the Exaflop range after only a few minutes!

That's Damned impressive!
Score
21
November 16, 2009 3:36:15 PM

A win for AMD.
Score
9
November 16, 2009 3:41:35 PM

zipzoomflyhighCan it play Crysis though?

Can you play the skin flute?
Score
-7
November 16, 2009 3:43:06 PM

D_KuhnMust take a power station to run the thing... and I bet it generates enough Global Warming all by itself (between coal burning power generation and 40,000 HSF's) that Al Gore cries every time it powers up.


Don't worry, it's at Oakridge, they have an entire nuclear power plant to run it, lol.
Score
1
November 16, 2009 3:46:07 PM

It would be interesting to see what data was analyzed on the previous Jaguar and the current one and comparison on achievements. and who are their clients? Is movie makers render their HD videos? Sony pictures? Columbia Pictures? This is interesting....
Score
0
November 16, 2009 3:48:01 PM

zipzoomflyhighCan it play Crysis though?

Can Crysis run on Linux?!
No. I am sorry you can't run Crysis. Go cry to EA.

Or quit making stupid jokes.
Score
10
November 16, 2009 3:59:19 PM

Quote:
"petaflops per second"

Redundant. FLOPS = FLoating point Operations Per Second.


Not only is it redundant, but if you think about it, shouldn't it actually be FPOPS?
Score
-2
November 16, 2009 4:01:07 PM

mathiasschnell"petaflops per second"Redundant. FLOPS = FLoating point Operations Per Second.


Should be fixed now. :) 
Score
4
November 16, 2009 4:13:11 PM

To be honest, I doubt even this computer can run Crysis effectively.

Judging by the fact that a 3 year old game still can't run at max settings on even some of the highest end consumer hardware, it's pretty obvious it's just a poorly coded piece of shit.
Score
7
Anonymous
November 16, 2009 4:22:32 PM

petaflops? it runs at petaphile operation speed!
Score
-9
November 16, 2009 4:29:32 PM

MustWarnOthersTo be honest, I doubt even this computer can run Crysis effectively. Judging by the fact that a 3 year old game still can't run at max settings on even some of the highest end consumer hardware, it's pretty obvious it's just a poorly coded piece of shit.


Not efficient coding is one aspect. The main reason why PCs still can't run it is the game is still the best looking and the most graphically intensive game ever created. Crysis 2 with the Cryengine 3 will actually be a downgrade so consoles can play it. And technically, the new dx11 ATI video cards CAN max out Crysis. A single ATI 5870 can play Crysis at 1920x1080 with everything set to Very High.
Score
7
Anonymous
November 16, 2009 4:37:58 PM

Can it play Crysis though?

No that joke never gets old. Hahahahahaha
Score
-10
November 16, 2009 4:48:10 PM

The Crysis joke is played out let it go!!! Big props to AMD!!!
Score
10
November 16, 2009 5:01:59 PM

socrates047this just sounds awsome, hopefully it is used for the good of humanity.


I think they use these things to run nuclear explosion simulations to keep the US stockpile of weapons up to date.
Score
5
November 16, 2009 5:14:22 PM

BlueScreenDeathNot efficient coding is one aspect. The main reason why PCs still can't run it is the game is still the best looking and the most graphically intensive game ever created. Crysis 2 with the Cryengine 3 will actually be a downgrade so consoles can play it. And technically, the new dx11 ATI video cards CAN max out Crysis. A single ATI 5870 can play Crysis at 1920x1080 with everything set to Very High.


that's really nice
but my laptop with a nvidia 9600m gt can play it at that res
the question is how many fps does it get?
Score
-4
November 16, 2009 5:17:17 PM

"The whole system has 300TB of memory and 10PB of hard disc space"

2GB per core*224,162 cores=448.324 TB of memory. Not sure what the actual amount is, but that is what the given data actually adds up to.

Good for AMD and Cray. I am interested in the kind of models and simulations that this beast runs...

Makes my i7 look like a 486 lol!!!
Score
-1
November 16, 2009 5:30:13 PM

Super Computers. The main market of AMD CPUs currently.
Score
1
November 16, 2009 5:33:17 PM

So much for that Chinese piece of junk Tom's reported on a few weeks ago.
Score
3
Anonymous
November 16, 2009 6:13:58 PM

zingam4004???


Basic gradeschool math fail:

2GB*224,162 = 448,324GB

1 TB = 1,024 GB thus 448,324GB = 437.816406 TB

(Yes, he was wrong too, but didn't fail like you did)
Score
-4
November 16, 2009 6:14:14 PM

Chuck Norris's computing power still far exceeds this.
Score
2
November 16, 2009 6:20:26 PM

Realistically speaking, a computer like this would be a great backend SQL host for a large ecommerce site such as Amazon or google. Instead of having a host of thousands of load-balanced microcomputers, we can start going back to 1 large macro/supercomputer for serving.

Also, another thing something like this would be used for is Virtual Computers; one Supercomputer hosting Virtual Spaces. This would be infinitely more practical than how IT runs today... our company has over 300 servers. We have more than 10 servers just dedicated to Exchange!
Score
1
November 16, 2009 6:27:18 PM

andboomerBasic gradeschool math fail:2GB*224,162 = 448,324GB1 TB = 1,024 GB thus 448,324GB = 437.816406 TB(Yes, he was wrong too, but didn't fail like you did)


And you fail the most. He was clearly referencing the Intel 486 and was saying that it made his i7 look like an Intel 4004.
Score
5
November 16, 2009 6:31:33 PM

I wonder how the SETI@HOME program compares to this? Any ideas guys??
Score
0
November 16, 2009 6:44:04 PM

mathiasschnell"petaflops per second"Redundant. FLOPS = FLoating point Operations Per Second.


No no silly, it's accelerating XD
Score
0
November 16, 2009 7:06:12 PM

when will we start seeing GPU powered super computers

a lone Radeon 5850 is about 2Pflops ?
Score
0
November 16, 2009 7:13:43 PM

how many years till a single chip will out perform this?
Score
0
November 16, 2009 7:29:08 PM

can it run GTA IV?
Score
-2
November 16, 2009 7:38:27 PM

They probably cheaped out on the video card with an Intel GMA 9000 POS chipset... or something similar :p 
Score
2
November 16, 2009 7:48:02 PM

ajcroteauThey probably cheaped out on the video card with an Intel GMA 9000 POS chipset... or something similar


they don't use a monitor, it's more like an 8-bit screen that gives numbers
like cheap calculators
Score
0
November 16, 2009 7:56:08 PM

VioMeTriXcan it run GTA IV?

Can GTA IV run on Linux?
Score
0
November 16, 2009 8:03:55 PM

Yeah, but will it run the dramatic chipmunk on YouTube?
Score
0
November 16, 2009 8:24:36 PM

Well, the only reason this was done with AMD chips is because they were free. Intel actually sells their chips and wasn't willing to donate them for this project.
Score
0
November 16, 2009 8:29:14 PM

@ Zingam

Both! Crysis still has the all around best graphics out if you ask me, the detail on that game is mind-blowing. BUT it could be optimized better. We will be seeing games with better graphics that run much better very soon.

Don't forget Crysis came out in 2007!

@article

Good god AMD!

This just in, Intel's 1.5Billion is spent! =P
Score
1
November 16, 2009 8:37:21 PM

mr_tuel"The whole system has 300TB of memory and 10PB of hard disc space"2GB per core*224,162 cores=448.324 TB of memory. Not sure what the actual amount is, but that is what the given data actually adds up to.Good for AMD and Cray. I am interested in the kind of models and simulations that this beast runs...Makes my i7 look like a 486 lol!!!
not so long ago was an article about the chinese supercomputer that is a hybrid between intel CPUs and AMD GPUs and compared to a household PC the figures was something like this: what that supercomputer does in 1 second a normal PC will take 160 years to compute, so all things said these means that the fastest supercomputer in the world would do in 1 second probably more calculations than your your I7 could have done since the time of Cesar till now ;) 
Score
0
November 16, 2009 8:40:59 PM


Some relevant info...

Many scientific apps do not scale well beyond 32 CPUs/cores, or so
I was told during my training course for Cray systems. It depends
on how well a task can be parallelised. Sometimes a single shared
memory system like Altix is far more effective when data access
patterns are very mixed & complicated between nodes and RAM,
other times a cluster makes more sense when a task can be easily
split into smaller units. Lots of other issues aswell - cache/RAM
behaviour, data I/O requirements, etc. (eg. ANSYS runs often
need massive amounts of RAM but not many CPUs).

Some tasks marry better onto different architectures such as
Vector machines. It varies.

It's much more likely that the Jaguar system is used to run
multiple different jobs at the same time, partitioned into
numerous separate OS instances (some variant of Linux I expect).

Typical applications include cosmology, weather modeling, QCD,
CFD, GIS, and yes modelling nuke explosions, though actually
other common tasks for that programme include things such as
modelling corrosion, wear & tear, etc. - what happens to the
casing after 30 years? Is it still reliable? Problems such as
how to design the electrical systems so they can withstand the
radiation, circuit redundancy, simulation, that sort of thing.
Modeling a bang is a small part of the whole approach.

In reality, 80% efficiency on systems such as this is a solid
achievement, if possible. Usually though the logical approach
is not to even try and run codes which would be better suited
to a different architecture, or just use it to run multiple
different tasks.

I've always had a soft spot for shared memory systems (because
they can handle just about anything) but it's hard to scale
them beyond a few thousand CPUs and cost-wise they're not the
best choice for tasks which can be easily split up such as
rendering, unless custom sw is written to exploit the
architecture properly (which is what ILM used to do with its
32-CPU Origin2000 systems). Still, it's no less fun watching a
32-CPU system doing a Blender render. :D 

I doubt Jaguar's top spot will last long though.

Also, lookout for SGI's new UV system being announced soon (AFAIK,
it's an i7 XEON NUMA shared-memory design - I hope so anyway),
and meanwhile we should start seeing large Nehalem clusters
appearing which ought to boost performance by a huge margin
given the big improvements available over the older XEON series.

Ian.

Score
1
!