Intel Delivers 10,000 Aurora Supercomputer Blades, Benchmarks Against Nvidia and AMD

Aurora

(Image credit: Intel)

With two exaflops of performance, the Intel-powered Aurora supercomputer is expected to beat the AMD-powered Frontier supercomputer, currently the fastest in the world, and take the lead on the Top 500 list of the fastest supercomputers. However, due to Intel's continued delays in delivering the hardware, Aurora has not yet submitted a benchmark to the Top 500 committee, so it didn't make the list announced today. Intel shared new details about the system today and announced at the ISC conference that it has delivered 'over' 10,000 operational blades for the Aurora supercomputer — but with the caveat that these aren't the actual blades needed for full deployment. We'll cover the details below.

However, Intel says the system will be fully operational later this year and shared benchmarks with Aurora going head-to-head against AMD and Nvidia-powered supercomputers, claiming a 2X performance advantage over AMD's MI250X GPUs, and a 20% gain over Nvidia's H100 GPUs.

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • bit_user
    Just don't compare them on perf/$.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    img #2
    intel # of gpu; 1, 3, 6,
    amd & nvidia # gpu: 1, 2, 4.
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    Aurora was supposed to be finished in 2018.
    It's 2023, and they're promishing to finish by the end of the year?

    WTF happened with the time tables?

    The machine is estimated to consume around 60 MW. For comparison, the fastest computer in the world today, Frontier uses 21 MW while Summit uses 13 MW.
    So Frontier delivers slightly over 1 ExaFlop for 21 MW's worth of power consumption.

    And this Aurora is going to deliver 2 ExaFlops for 60 MW?

    Something went horribly wrong here.
    Reply
  • TechieTwo
    Intel will ship the rest of the CPUs as soon as their 10nm process is fixed. ;)
    Reply
  • Jimbojan
    If you don't know anything, it better to keep quiet!
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Seems like it'll be ready for November so we'll see what the real world performance looks like. Intel's HPC strategy definitely relies on this being a success along with OneAPI. I'm looking forward to seeing how the CPU based HBM is leveraged in the HPC space.

    hotaru251 said:
    img #2
    intel # of gpu; 1, 3, 6,
    amd & nvidia # gpu: 1, 2, 4.
    They're vendor provided benchmarks so grain of salt, but it's likely based on available configurations. If you look at the numbers Intel's 3 are faster than nvidia's 4 and slightly slower than AMD's 4.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    thestryker said:
    so grain of salt
    ofc, but when you are comparing specs between stuff if it isnt 1:1 then you already doing it wrong.


    Not everything scales the same thus even if you do the math based on whats given doesn't mean that is what will actually be truth.
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    I'm more worried about the power consumption and energy efficiency.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    hotaru251 said:
    img #2
    intel # of gpu; 1, 3, 6,
    amd & nvidia # gpu: 1, 2, 4.
    Good catch. But, I think Intel's defense would be that it's a graph intending to show scaling linearity. That's what the shadows are meant to depict. Even then, Nvidia scales better @ 4 than Intel does @ 3. So, that's not really such a great counterpoint.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    thestryker said:
    If you look at the numbers Intel's 3 are faster than nvidia's 4 and slightly slower than AMD's 4.
    Do you even know what they're comparing? Polaris is using A100's, which launched 3 years ago and are made on TSMC N7. Ponte Vecchio uses a mix of TSMC N5, N7, and Intel 7.

    The other point of note is where I started: cost. It's hard to get pricing details, especially ones not subject to current AI-driven market distortions, but I think you'd find the product costs of each Xe GPU Max are multiple times that of a single A100, even back when it launched.

    Today, the only reason you wouldn't buy a H100 is because you can't.
    Reply