IBM Has Plans for a 100 PFlop Supercomputer
A patent filing details IBM's plans to take the building blocks of the Sequoia supercomputer to a performance level of 100 PFlop/s.
According to the document, which stretches over 649 pages, IBM describes a BlueGene/Q system that is based on 524,288 processing nodes with 16-core PowerPC A2 processors that are able to handle 64 threads each. The system would include almost 8.4 million processing cores that are organized in 512 racks. The targeted performance is a peak of 107 PFlop/s.
The BlueGene/Q Sequoia supercomputer IBM is currently building for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will use about 1.6 million A2 processing cores in 96 racks. The patent claims that each processing node will consume about 30 watts of power, which puts the 107 PFlop/s system at only 15.7 MW. That is rather impressive for a system with more than 8 million CPU cores.
The patent suggests that IBM has big plans with BlueGene/Q and especially its 5D torus network that connects the computing nodes among each other. There was no information when such a 100+ PFlop/s system could become reality. Sequoia is scheduled to go online in 2012 with a peak performance of about 20 PFlop/s.
- Opinion: What Does AMD's New CEO Need to Fix?
- Sandy Bridge-E Coming November to a Store Near You
- How to Hack Together a TV Celebrity Silencer
- HP Pavilion DM1 Now Just $399, Sports AMD E-series
- AMD Shipping Desktop A4-3300, A4-3400 APUs
- EA Studies WoW While Prepping SW: TOR Launch
- OCZ joins the mSATA SSD Battlefield
- Deals Sept 8: 27" Planar 1080p 2ms LCD Monitor $229
- MSI Calls Out Gigabyte for "Not True PCIe 3.0"
- Blizzard: Six "Proven Property" Titles by 2014
- ADATA Doubles Down on SATA III With Value SSD
- Hacker Claiming He Can Exploit Windows Update
- Angelbird Now Shipping SSD RAID Card for 800 MB/s
- Opinion: What Microsoft Must Accomplish in IE10
- Windows 8 to Support Native ISO and VHD Mounting
- Deals Sept 12: Deus Ex Human Revolution (Console) $35
- The First Glimpse of the Windows 8 Start Menu
- Opinion: Can You Blame the PC Crash on the iPad?
IBM'S Watson is crying some where.
But can it run Crysis?
"Only 15.7 MW" LOL!
nice computer... May be that pc can resolve the problems of antartida
LMAO, i bet it lags in minecraft.
on august 10 2011, news came out that IBM drops 10Flop NCSA Supercomputer project because of technical complexity and cost. Now they're going for something 10 times faster. Big Blue going after Big Dream.
"The patent claims that each processing node will consume about 30 watts of power, which puts the 107 PFlop/s system at only 15.7 MW. That is rather impressive for a system with more than 8 million CPU cores."
That's extremely impressive given the level of peak performance. Many current supercomputers in the 1 Pflop range can consume ~5-10 MW.
code named, SKYNET
Doc: "Wait, what did I just say? 1.21 GIGAWATTS?!??!?!"
Wow... 4 threads per core... I daresay hyperthreading quails before this!
Finally, something that can handle the spec requirements for Battlefield 3
But can it run Crysis?
No No No NO! Wrong!
The CORRECT question is now
But can it play NON-Remastered Crysis? Psssssh!
The only thing impressive here is the threads and power consumption. If power wasn't an issue I would like to see a CUDA node of this size.
but can it run crysis 2?
100 PFLOP/s sounds impressive (although I don't know much about what PFLOP/s exactly refers to) and that is a *** ton of cores..but I'd be more impressed to see that much processing power with way fewer cores. Anyone can add another processor and circuit board to the rack, but improving technology and packing more power into one CPU/board is what its all about. right?
That will make a great render farm, Or a batch encoder. Imagine how quickly you can convert 1080p video to 480p for your mobile devices.
Can it play Crysis 3... thousand?
Damn.... and I though that the i5 2500K was already fast enough... (from what I've seen) This REALLY makes my 1st gen quad i5 750 look shitty, (and 8GB DDR3 1600) even when I upgrade the gpu to a ati 5770 or something...
Good! Good to see IBM still there trying.
Damn.... and I though that the i5 2500K was already fast enough... (from what I've seen) This REALLY makes my 1st gen quad i5 750 look shitty, (and 8GB DDR3 1600) even when I upgrade the gpu to a ati 5770 or something...
Yes, some super computers (more as time goes on) do use x86 processors, but the processors used in this planned and current IBM supercomputers use the Power architecture. Keep in mind that the Power architecture is a completely difference beast than x86, designed with with a much different set of goals in mind.
Considering we're still at 8.12PFLOPS for Fujitsu K, 100PFLOPS is gigantic...
And IBM's project after this one is a portable nuclear power plant.
Just give me the money that this thing will use in electricity for one month, I need a new house.
There is a lot of snubbery in the comments about what IBM can and can't do. Luckily, I am a snubberer.
Why can't ordinary software developers take a page or two off these highly parallel supercomputers? If the software that runs on these things can take advantage of thousands or millions of cores at once, why can't, for example, game developers even take advantage of four cores properly?
er and they need this power for....???
man, I had a plan for one of these once...
too bad my unicorn ate it...
Why can't ordinary software developers take a page or two off these highly parallel supercomputers? If the software that runs on these things can take advantage of thousands or millions of cores at once, why can't, for example, game developers even take advantage of four cores properly?
There is a huge difference between the problems game programmers have to solve and the problems supercomputers run. Supercomputing applications operate on HUGE data sets. Furthermore, the underlying problems on supercomputer being solved allow programmers can be solved complerely in parallel. Basically, each data element can be processed more or less independently, with only the occasional synchronization needed. Games on the other hand are full of serial code that must be run in a certain order, and unlike supercomputing there are few opportunities to simply spin up dozens (or thousands) or cores and have each core chew through each block independently.
There is a huge difference between the problems game programmers have to solve and the problems supercomputers run. Supercomputing applications operate on HUGE data sets. Furthermore, the underlying problems on supercomputer being solved allow programmers can be solved complerely in parallel. Basically, each data element can be processed more or less independently, with only the occasional synchronization needed. Games on the other hand are full of serial code that must be run in a certain order, and unlike supercomputing there are few opportunities to simply spin up dozens (or thousands) or cores and have each core chew through each block independently.
Spell check pls...got a little confused
You will all be dead when this power will come in desktop size
Unless people find out about genetic manipulation to live longer. No war no diseases...etc
If it's even possible to make a supercomputer hat small and the evolution of hardware stays the same.(cloud computing controlling super computers like this from home...that's just not the same
I bet it will be a big Flop.