Intel Ups Aurora's Performance to 2 ExaFLOPS, Engages in ZettaFLOPS Race

(Image credit: Argonne National Laboratory)

Argonne National Laboratory’s Aurora was meant to be the first supercomputer with sustainable performance of over 1 ExaFLOPS in Linpack benchmark, but after being delayed this left the title to the Frontier supercomputer. However, Aurora will be the industry's first 2 ExaFLOPS supercomputer thanks to higher-than-expected performance of Intel's Ponte Vecchio compute GPU, the company said. Also, Ponte Vecchio will power the Europe's first exascale system. In addition, Intel says that it will deliver technologies for a ZettaFLOPS machine by 2027.

Aurora: World's First 2 ExaFLOPS Supercomputer

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • JayNor
    "The system was first announced in 2015, was set to be powered by Intel's Xeon Phi accelerators and deliver around 180 PetaFLOPS in 2018."

    I believe those Xeon Phi accelerators were something similar to the Gracemont cores on the Alder Lake. Maybe this design will again be evaluated again, as leaks say the efficient core counts on the Alder Lake successors will increase from 8 to 16 in 2022, and to 24 in 2023.
    Reply
  • JayNor
    Intel stated that Aurora node processing was memory bandwidth limited with just HBM attached to Ponte Vecchio. They added the SRAM Rambo Cache as a solution.

    I've seen large improvements in HBM performance specs recently. I wonder if the Aurora node design is still at a point where they can evaluate those type of changes.
    Reply
  • Integr8d
    You have to remember; these are ‘Intel years’.
    Reply
  • dalek1234
    Integr8d said:
    You have to remember; these are ‘Intel years’.

    It reminds me of Uber minutes. I think there are 120 seconds in each minute, last time I counted (yesterday)
    Reply