IBM Working on 10 Petaflop Supercomputer
IBM is building a new supercomputer based on its Power7 processor.
Softpedia reports that IBM's octo-core Power7 microprocessor will play a part in the construction of a new supercomputer capable of an initial peak performance of 10 petaflops. The new computer will be named Blue Waters and will be based at the University of Illinois.
According to SP, the machine will become operational next year and will have a theoretical peak computing capability of 16 petaflops. While this will supposedly be achievable by connecting up to 16,384 Power7 nodes, IBM doesn't expect the initial performance to surpass the 10-petaflops mark.
Aside from utilizing water cooling to keep heat under control, Ed Seminaro, an IBMer working on project, says the team has taken extra steps to make the project a little more environmentally friendly. "We took a lot of the infrastructure that's typically inside of the computer room for cooling and powering and moved the equivalent of that infrastructure right into that same cabinet with the server, storage, and interconnect hardware,” Seminaro says. “The whole rack is water-cooled. We actually water-cool the processor directly to pull the heat out. We take it right to water, which is very power efficient.”
So just how fast is this capable-of-10-petaflops supercomputer? Seminaro goes on to say, "The transfer of data between any of those two nodes in the system is at the full rate of 192GB per second—peak. So, you can get data from anyplace to anyplace at that kind of speed with latency on the order of less than one microsecond.”
Check out the full story here.
Follow us on Twitter for more tech news and exclusive updates here.
- IBM ,
- Supercomputer ,
- Blue ,
- Waters ,
- Illinois
- Seagate Announces Pulsar SSDs for Enterprises
- AMD to Demonstrate on Blu-ray Stereoscopic 3D
- Monday Deals: HDTVs, PCs, Herman Miller Chairs
- ''Capture the Flag'' Pioneer Closes Doors
- Tim Sweeney Laments Intel Larrabee Demise
- Microsoft Pulls Plug on Windows 7 Family Pack
- Candy Corngrats to Our Corsair Case Contestants
- Intel's Larrabee Delayed Indefinitely
- Speakers in Glass Houses for $1,000
- Archos 5 Tablet at Radio Shack for $250
- Physicists Build World's Smallest Snowman
- What Nvidia Had to Say About Larrabee's Delay
- Tuesday Deals: Lost Blu-ray Seasons 1-5 SALE!
- Microsoft Changes Browser Ballot to Appease EU
- Intel to Introduce GPGPU Functions Into Westmere
- Google Releases Chrome Beta for Linux, Mac
- Apple Ordered to Pay $21.7 Million in Patent Suit
- Intel Core i3 530 Appears in Online Store Listing
I was at this facility last year and they talked about the blue waters project. Really amazing place. Can't wait to see that thing in action, and what they can do with it.
I think it will play Crysis.
I think I will hurt the next person who makes a reference to a computer and its ability to play Crysis.
I think I will hurt the next person who makes a reference to a computer and its ability to play Crysis.
ya man, enough talk about Crysis (1) already, I'm getting sick of hearing that crap aswell..
I wonder if this machine could prevent a cpu bottleneck when Crysis 2 is released?
Well, if it had like a gazzilion of 5970, it would be able to play crysis or the second one at quad-full-hd with 16x aa and 16 as.
Call me when they announce the first supercomputer with one yottaflop
, or maybe whit one xeraflop if I'll still be alive by then ...
Why doesn't IBM sell their processors at retail? I know some of what we read about here is enterprise grade only, but it seems to me that very little keeps them from making processors for hp, dell or acer.
Which means, I am probably missing something.
Call me when they announce the first supercomputer with one yottaflop , or maybe whit one xeraflop if I'll still be alive by then ...
oh man I hope so,
by that time we wont even have to think for ourselves XD
I think I will hurt the next person who makes a reference to hurting a person who makes a reference to a computer and it's ability to play Crysis.
All I can say is that I still play Crysis regularly and it is still a pretty good benchmark on real world hardware performance
And this computer should be able to play Crysis
All I can say is that I still play Crysis regularly and it is still a pretty good benchmark on real world hardware performanceAnd this computer should be able to play Crysis
I doubt it will have more than an 8MB video card (if it even has one)... although, it probably wont have problems running in software, probably make a good dedicated server though.
the comp in my room can only do at peak 9 petaflops so this one is pretty good.
the comp in my room can only do at peak 9 petaflops so this one is pretty good.
the comp in my room can only do at peak 9 petaflops so this one is pretty good.
No, you are mistaken. Your comp in your room can only flop. Sorry.
Can it play Solitaire?
Petaflops? Units of animal cruelty?
*Collective groan*
More on topic...The Power7 looks like it will be a monster. 8 cores per chip, 2 chips per module, 4 threads per core...You do the math.
I think it will play Crysis.
Seriously? How old are you?
Petaflops? Units of animal cruelty?*Collective groan*More on topic...The Power7 looks like it will be a monster. 8 cores per chip, 2 chips per module, 4 threads per core...You do the math.
4 threads per core.
Go IBM. =D
4 threads per core. Go IBM. =D
Yep...Too bad they aren't in the consumer space, eh?
I think I will hurt the next person who makes a reference to a computer and its ability to play Crysis.
omfg me to really annoying now
Why doesn't IBM sell their processors at retail? I know some of what we read about here is enterprise grade only, but it seems to me that very little keeps them from making processors for hp, dell or acer. Which means, I am probably missing something.
Yes, the part your missing is a magic little thing called x86. IBM isn't licenced to produce chips featuring the x86 instruction set, only Intel, AMD and VIA are.
Why doesn't IBM sell their processors at retail? I know some of what we read about here is enterprise grade only, but it seems to me that very little keeps them from making processors for hp, dell or acer. Which means, I am probably missing something.
Several reasons...
1) IBM POWER processors were removed by Apple from its product line and replaced by Intel tech.
2) IBM sold its consumer line to Lenovo due to low margins, and because the consumer products they sold were based on Intel/AMD/Windows which is out of control of IBM Research and Development. IBM kept the xSeries and Blade servers. Some Blade servers use POWER processors.
3) Consumer market don't use IBM operating systems (AIX, z/VM) and so there is the lack of both aspects at the sametime (no CPU and no OS).
4) IBM invested a lot on Cell processors which are used by Sony on Playstations, Toshiba on high resolution TV's, on zSeries mainframes by some Software houses to support on-line gaming and even by Microsoft on Xbox 360.
5) IBM provides (sells?) some new tech to AMD so the consumer market and the Windows enterprise market don't fall definitelly on the hands of a single provider=Intel.
HP has a strong agreement with Intel regarding Intel Itanium processors to compete directly with IBM POWER processors. So i'm not seeing IBM selling POWER processors to HP or HP will to buy them...
Quite impressive. I can't even imagine the kind of processing power that beast will have once it is completed. Funny how it will be based at the U of I, as I recall the "super computer" in 2001 A Space Odyssey was "built" there. No idea why I pointed that out, but hey, it's a good movie.
IBM isn't licenced to produce chips featuring the x86 instruction set, only Intel, AMD and VIA are.
Well actually it's Intel the proprietary of the x86 patents. So it's Intel that licenses it to AMD and VIA.
Anyway there are three aspects to consider:
1) Intel sells x86 processors to IBM (and so does AMD) but sells also to Dell, HP, Siemens, Apple, ... , and so probably for the Windows Server market it's cheaper for IBM and other companies to buy the chips to Intel rather than to produce them and pay royalties to Intel. And IBM is also one of the most important customers for Intel and Intel don't want IBM to focus only on AMD x86, POWER and Cell processors... you'll never know what Intel could expect from that important change.
2) IBM had an important experience several years ago with Cyrix processors which was a fiasco. So probably it's not interesting to go back in time and do it again.
3) It is known that IBM pushes AMD, providing technology and know-how (just like that High-K stuff), and AMD is a special case regarding in using Intel x86 patents (just read the recent news about Intel+AMD agreement for 5 years!).
So this is a long term complex relationship between Intel and IBM regarding x86, because both are producers, sellers and customers!
Quite impressive. I can't even imagine the kind of processing power that beast will have once it is completed. Funny how it will be based at the U of I, as I recall the "super computer" in 2001 A Space Odyssey was "built" there. No idea why I pointed that out, but hey, it's a good movie.
A few days ago i saw on TV that "HAL" computer from 2001 movie, was named using each previous letter in the alphabet from each letter from "IBM". :-)
Yes, the part your missing is a magic little thing called x86. IBM isn't licenced to produce chips featuring the x86 instruction set, only Intel, AMD and VIA are.
If IBM wanted to get into the consumer processor market, they would. They could buy up AMD or Via with little to no debt required. They are staying more flexable by not entering the market directly, for the reasons powerbaselx listed. If they want to hit up Intel for a product, they can. If they want to hit up AMD for a product, they can. They are still a powerhouse of technology, earning more money than Intel (Intel: hundreds of millions last quarter, IBM: billions last quarter).
I would have said net profits of Intel, AMD, and Via combined, but AMD and Via brought the total down...
192 GB per second...... at peak, with latencies so fast.... I can see all kinds of info can be retained and sent in seconds...... all the more for homelan security to gather your data and store it somewhere else in seconds by the terabytes.....
If IBM wanted to get into the consumer processor market, they would. They could buy up AMD or Via with little to no debt required. They are staying more flexable by not entering the market directly, for the reasons powerbaselx listed. If they want to hit up Intel for a product, they can. If they want to hit up AMD for a product, they can. They are still a powerhouse of technology, earning more money than Intel (Intel: hundreds of millions last quarter, IBM: billions last quarter).I would have said net profits of Intel, AMD, and Via combined, but AMD and Via brought the total down...INTERGALACTIC BLACK MONOLITH
INTERGALACTIC BLACK MONOLITH
WAIT I CAME UP WITH THE TERM WHY DID IT GO TO HONIS QUOTE???
How fast is that new Chinese super computer suppose to be?
Seriously? How old are you?
Old enough to play Crysis.