Air Force Still Using PS3 as 33rd Largest Computer

[dv1795]

That seems like my ideal living room.

 

[dheadley]

the cluster contains 1,760 Sony PlayStation 3 units and 168 GPU based units with an estimated computing power of 500 teraflops. That places Condor among the top 50 of the world's fastest systems. The cost of the cluster was only $2 million when comparable systems at that performance level would cost at least $20 million to $40 million.

Seems like if wasn't really a waist to me.

 

[chick0n]

[citation][nom]americanherosandwich[/nom]$10,000? Divide that by 1,760, it means they bought each PS3 for $5.68? I don't think that's accurate. Hell, they have laptops that cost $10k.[/citation]

the quoted post totally shows how garbage our educational system is.

can't even read a simply post. this is just sad.

 

[Albyint]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]Actually, YOU were the one that missed the point: if you'd read the article, you'd note that the PS3s required a lot of extra "more conventional hardware" to make them function, and you also might notice that the total cost mentioned in the article was ~$2,000,000US for 1760 nodes: that meant that on top of the $400US for the PS3, they spent $736US extra PER console to make it set up: hardly "ready to deploy." My whole post noted that in both cases, neither solution was stand-alone: it needed other parts.Plus there's the limitations of architecture: the PS3 has a grand total of 256MB of RAM on the CPU, (the GPU can freely access the CPU's RAM, but not vice-versa) and interconnects with gigabit Ethernet. With that 4850, the card alone has potentially 1GB of RAM, (they close to the same as 512MB cards, currently) and you can get 10G Ethernet if you wanted.[/citation]

Honestly I find myself agreeing with this guy. PS3s dont seem like the best choice to make a super computer with. Not to say that is isnt an impressive super computer set up, but arent we pulling way ahead of this stuff with CUDA by now?

 

[eklipz330]

but can it...

No, it can't, not without a Blu-ray Disc drive.

...aw shucks.

 

[oscarkipling]

yeah they should have spent 2 million dollars on a Superbowl commercial and embossed pencils and backpacks emblazoned with the air-force logo for high school seniors kids instead of building this gimmick that also actually does something useful.

 

[nottheking]

Oh, I see someone's throwing a fit and down-voting comments that prove them wrong now? Tsk, tsk.
[citation][nom]fflam[/nom]plus there best bet was to run Linux and as far as im aware (unless its changed in the last 6 months to a year) ATI drivers for Linux are crap and wont handle the GPGPU functions of the radeon. other wise you would have to install windows at $100+ a pop.. Linux is free and can be customized any way you want to streamline the system.[/citation]
Well then, take a GeForce card instead of an ATi one... Though the "Radeon can't do Linux" schtick is a little old, (say, by almost a decade) and only applied to 3D, not OpenCL; case-in-point: the original configuration of Tianhe-1 was using 5,120 Radeon 4870X2s. I wasn't even suggesting Windows would be used: it's kinda telling that Linux monopolizes the TOP500 list.

[citation][nom]dheadley[/nom]the cluster contains 1,760 Sony PlayStation 3 units and 168 GPU based units with an estimated computing power of 500 teraflops. That places Condor among the top 50 of the world's fastest systems. The cost of the cluster was only $2 million when comparable systems at that performance level would cost at least $20 million to $40 million.Seems like if wasn't really a waist to me.[/citation]
Remember that 500 teraflop figure is SINGLE-precision: it's far easier/cheaper to get a bigger number in single-precision, so you can't compare it to the "1 petaflop" figures from the top machines. It's a false comparison to label it as among the "top 50 computers in the world;" that's a bit of foolery that both console and GPU makers are all too glad to trick people with. Similar is using the THEORETICAL peak powers, while the numbers given for the TOP500 list are all real-world benchmark results.

After all, if we relaxed the specifications to single-precision only, Tianhe-1 would shoot up from its theoretical peak of 4.701 Petaflops to well over 10 Petaflops: the Tesla cards ALONE would add an additional 5.5 petaflops; the Xeons would ad at least another 1 petaflop going into single-precision, as that'd let them make full use of SSE to its full extent. Total theoretical power would be akin to >11,200 teraflops... Suddenly that 500 teraflop figure doesn't sound so impressive anymore, does it?

 

[sceen311]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]Well, here's the lowdown: the the PS3 makes a terrible supercomputer node. Why's that? It's because its Cell processor was not designed for double-precision. The PS3's CPU gets an admirable 211.2 Gigaflops of performance in single-precision math... But single-precision is only good for media and gaming tasks.[/citation]

Uhhh, but wouldn't " doing intense and fast analysis of high-resolution images" be a media task that would only require single precision math?

 

[dEAne]

I thought they're playing, that's the future - I wish I could use that PS3 to fly RC planes too.

 

[Kaiser_25]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]This "supercomputer" is purely a marketing gimmick by the Air Force, to make them attract people from the gamer audience. The Air Force, as I'd learned, is desperate to reach out to that sort of demographic, and they feel that by boasting they have a lot of PS3s, they can make themselves seem better to these potential recruits.Well, here's the lowdown: the the PS3 makes a terrible supercomputer node. Why's that? It's because its Cell processor was not designed for double-precision. The PS3's CPU gets an admirable 211.2 Gigaflops of performance in single-precision math... But single-precision is only good for media and gaming tasks. Actual scientific, engineering, and HPC tasks NEED double-precision. And at that... The Cell trails badly, dropping to about 32 gigaflops.Computers are an engineering thing: you CAN'T have a design that's best at everything. You have to sacrifice one thing to get another. The PS3 sacrifices any real supercomputing capability in order to be good at being both a gaming machine, and a high-definition media center/Blu-ray player. The flip side is that for this "PS3 cluster," the Air Force is only getting a measly 56.32 Teraflops of actual supercomputer power. (the RSX is a GeForce design that pre-dates CUDA)If they wanted a real supercomputer, they'd use IBM's modified supercomputer variant of the Cell, the PowerXCell 8i. This is what's ACTUALLY used for supercomputers: it natively handles double-precision, and gets 108.8 gigaflops instead of only 32. That would bump the machine up to nearly 200 teraflops of power, which would put it in REAL major supercomputer territory. That, and IBM MAKES PowerXCell blades that are made for this, and are VASTLY more energy-efficient than using PS3s.It's kinda telling: you look at the most powerful supercomputers in the world, and not a single one uses a PS3. But many of them use the PowerXCell. (including a former #1, RoadRunner) That demonstrates that this Air Force machine is all for show.[/citation]



usually not a troll, but yeah its hardly a stunt to get gamers....you tard, they really chose this because how damn cheap it is, 300$ per PS3 is cheap as hell compared to a real server.

 

[amnotanoobie]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]Plus there's the limitations of architecture: the PS3 has a grand total of 256MB of RAM on the CPU, (the GPU can freely access the CPU's RAM, but not vice-versa) and interconnects with gigabit Ethernet. With that 4850, the card alone has potentially 1GB of RAM, (they close to the same as 512MB cards, currently) and you can get 10G Ethernet if you wanted.[/citation]

Cell = actual cpu, GPU = cpu with limited functionality but insanely fast. It's actually quite stupid to compare the 2 based upon FLOPS when the work that the two could do is quite different.

Considering that your typical Playstation's inner guts (excluding the power supply and disc drive) usually are tough as nails (and could run years without problems) compared to your typical consumer grade video card, I see why they'd want a PS3 cluster. Also, the Cell may not be as fast in some tasks as a GPU, but it sure as hell could execute a lot more types of instructions than a GPU could probably ever do (being an actual cpu).

 

[Lutfij]

The army is just looking for a kick ass gaming console with the "We need a better supercomputer" to keep America at the forefront of defense - I wonder what Obama would say at the army's prerequisites?

 

[cookoy]

what is important aside from the cost side is what it was used for, what benefits
did it give in return, what it accomplished. $2m for a supercomputer class system
is good IMO.

 

[heydonald]

What they should do is spend 2 million dollars on making all the buildings look like Hogwarts.

 

[distanted]

Didn't Iraq try to buy hundreds of these or xboxes to use as missile guidance systems before the invasion? Looks like the new battle front is at Toys R Us.

 

[im_caius]

These comments have been more entertaining than the actual article. But i think they just made it to have a lag free Black Ops.

 

[kronos_cornelius]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]This "supercomputer" is purely a marketing gimmick by the Air Force, to make them attract people from the gamer audience. The Air Force, as I'd learned, is desperate to reach out to that sort of demographic, and they feel that by boasting they have a lot of PS3s, they can make themselves seem better to these potential recruits.Well, here's the lowdown: the the PS3 makes a terrible supercomputer node. Why's that? It's because its Cell processor was not designed for double-precision. The PS3's CPU gets an admirable 211.2 Gigaflops of performance in single-precision math... But single-precision is only good for media and gaming tasks. Actual scientific, engineering, and HPC tasks NEED double-precision. And at that... The Cell trails badly, dropping to about 32 gigaflops.Computers are an engineering thing: you CAN'T have a design that's best at everything. You have to sacrifice one thing to get another. The PS3 sacrifices any real supercomputing capability in order to be good at being both a gaming machine, and a high-definition media center/Blu-ray player. The flip side is that for this "PS3 cluster," the Air Force is only getting a measly 56.32 Teraflops of actual supercomputer power. (the RSX is a GeForce design that pre-dates CUDA)If they wanted a real supercomputer, they'd use IBM's modified supercomputer variant of the Cell, the PowerXCell 8i. This is what's ACTUALLY used for supercomputers: it natively handles double-precision, and gets 108.8 gigaflops instead of only 32. That would bump the machine up to nearly 200 teraflops of power, which would put it in REAL major supercomputer territory. That, and IBM MAKES PowerXCell blades that are made for this, and are VASTLY more energy-efficient than using PS3s.It's kinda telling: you look at the most powerful supercomputers in the world, and not a single one uses a PS3. But many of them use the PowerXCell. (including a former #1, RoadRunner) That demonstrates that this Air Force machine is all for show.[/citation]

Very good argument. Here is another reason why they would do it. Around the time the PS3 came out, it was mentioned that some countries could not import HPC computers because of their tyrannical leadership, but they could import PS3 because they were game console. So maybe the Airforce was trying to gauge how powerful a super computer made with PS3 would be to estimate what other countries could do with it.

 

[bv90andy]

And I bet those still have the ps2 chips inside...

 

[mrmotion]

The gov't does hire the worlds best hackers. The top hackers in the world are not doing it for the sport. You dont think these guys at all are involved in tweaking these systems? And so far no one has addressed software issues. Did it occur to anyone that the software they could have had previously meshed exceedingly well with the new system as opposed to rewriting or updating to new software?

 

[Guest]

They want to show us that they have customer technologies in the ARMY labs. This is an "old" article to act as a understated selling add for the ps3 console. I say "old" because this cluster is a old one...

We have the same powerfull hardware than what you could have at home in our lab!

 

[Guest]

@nottheking did you take into consideration the air force developed this system 5-6 years ago when none of the technology you are talking about was available? CUDA was still in it's infancy and was still only a concept by NVidia. The cost of other hardware to set it up came in the form of networking devices, the same devices needed to setup the system you keep rambling on about. Yes, using "today's" available hardware the PS3 is a waste, but this wasn't designed last week, get over it.

 

[rhino13]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]Well, here's the lowdown: the the PS3 makes a terrible supercomputer node. Why's that? It's because its Cell processor was not designed for double-precision.[/citation]

Incorrect The Cell was designed for double-precision, it actually has a special instruction set to handle them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)#Power_Processor_Element_.28PPE.29

 

[tipoo]

How well does their supercomputer get on with only 256MB of RAM per processor?

 

[commhealy]

When they say "largest" I assume this is talking about speed and not the volume all of those consoles take up in the room?

 

[commhealy]

[citation][nom]Albyint[/nom]Honestly I find myself agreeing with this guy. PS3s dont seem like the best choice to make a super computer with. Not to say that is isnt an impressive super computer set up, but arent we pulling way ahead of this stuff with CUDA by now?[/citation]

Sure there is but it takes a long time to configure something like this. It's kind of a waste of time to only run it a couple of years considering the labor. You can always build another one with the newest parts but the old one is still useful.