News AMD says zettascale supercomputers will need half a gigawatt to operate, enough for 375,000 homes

[Admin]

AMD shared a graph at ISC 2025 demonstrating the projected growth of supercomputer power consumption until 2035. It expects by the mid-2030s, supercomputers will require 500 megawatts of energy to run.

AMD says zettascale supercomputers will need half a gigawatt to operate, enough for 375,000 homes : Read more

 

[Notton]

That doesn't sound like a sustainable level of energy demand growth.
Well, unless all safety bars are removed and you build a 1GW nuclear reactor in 7yrs... every year for however long is necessary to meet demand.

 

[LolaGT]

We are going to need many of the latest gen fission reactors or we can not meet our power needs goals, not just for super computers/datacenters, but for just general needs.
By many I mean dozens and dozens of modular reactors. The big reactors will never be built fast enough or in the numbers needed.

 

[SomeoneElse23]

Fusion is a long way off, as they haven't yet figured out how to create a container that can sustain the reaction and not be destroyed in the process.

Nuclear fission reactors can do it though. The technology exists to make fission much safer and the technology exists to deal with the leftovers. But it costs money that the industry doesn't want to put it in it.

You also have the not in my back yard problem.

 

[A Stoner]

Fission is a long way off, as they haven't yet figured out how to create a container that can sustain the reaction and not be destroyed in the process.

Nuclear fusion reactors can do it though. The technology exists to make fusion much safer and the technology exists to deal with the leftovers. But it costs money that the industry doesn't want to put it in it.

You also have the not in my back yard problem.

Fission is what we use today, where atoms are broken apart into lighter elements. Fusion is what we want where we fuse atoms together into heavier elements. Otherwise, true.

 

[A Stoner]

That doesn't sound like a sustainable level of energy demand growth.
Well, unless all safety bars are removed and you build a 1GW nuclear reactor in 7yrs... every year for however long is necessary to meet demand.

There are not that many top of the line super computers. It should not be that hard to keep up with the onsies and twosies that will be built.

 

[Alex/AT]

And that means it's a stalemate for energy-inefficient applications.
The same way countries are already imposing mining bans, it will affect those as well.

 

[George³]

It's that simple. Stop building crazy amounts of computing power. No matter how hard you try, you can't compute the universe. It's not a problem anymore, is it?

 

[reryro]

Fission is a long way off, as they haven't yet figured out how to create a container that can sustain the reaction and not be destroyed in the process.

Nuclear fusion reactors can do it though. The technology exists to make fusion much safer and the technology exists to deal with the leftovers. But it costs money that the industry doesn't want to put it in it.

You also have the not in my back yard problem.

You know, providing all these details while simultaneously having it all totally backwards is a tell-tale sign of not having any understanding of what you're saying, but instead merely regurgitating what you've superficially read...

 

[SomeoneElse23]

Fission is what we use today, where atoms are broken apart into lighter elements. Fusion is what we want where we fuse atoms together into heavier elements. Otherwise, true.

Ooops. Got my terms reversed. Thanks!

 

[SomeoneElse23]

You know, providing all these details while simultaneously having it all totally backwards is a tell-tale sign of not having any understanding of what you're saying, but instead merely regurgitating what you've superficially read...

Actually, I do understand it, quite well.

It's a matter of getting my terms reversed, either because I was in a hurry, or because I wasn't thinking clearly.

I'm sure you get everything you say and write correct, though, right? Never reverse your words, or say something completely different than you meant?

 

[A Stoner]

You know, providing all these details while simultaneously having it all totally backwards is a tell-tale sign of not having any understanding of what you're saying, but instead merely regurgitating what you've superficially read...

I think it was just a mistake, the entire rest of his argument seems perfectly reasonable once you account for accidently mixing the two technologies up. Have a great weekend.