Fujitsu Launches 23 PFlops PRIMEHPC FX10 Supercomputer

Status
Not open for further replies.

_Cubase_

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2009
363
0
18,780
0
I love reading about all these new supercomputers. I also love reading articles showing which supercomputers (from the days of old) are being surpassed by my mobile phone (in time).
 

bildo123

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2007
1,599
0
19,810
8
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Oh hell...it'd better be able to!!![/citation]

Software rendered even...though most people that spout the crisis meme aren't old enough to know the days of having a software render as an option.
 
G

Guest

Guest
The trade-off between power and performance, is strongly in favor of IBMs PowerPC.
I'd rather buy 116,000 PowerPC A2s (consuming 3,480kW), which would equal the performance of the 98,304 SPARC64 IXfxs (consuming 11,600kW), and save tons of money with PowerPCs lower power consumption. Plus, it's more eco-friendly.
 

JeTJL

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2011
85
0
18,630
0
Saying they are offering a Scalable computer doesn't mean that it will come right away.
That and they would most likely not scale up to what they can scale it to.

Though a announcement of a Upgrade to a Super Computer should doesn't necessarily mean that the upgrade will go according to plan. Though most likely it could.

So keep your eyes open, because America's vying for the fastest super computer spot.
Good Luck Oak Ridge hope Linpack works well for you and your new Titan Super Computer!

 

nicodemus_mm

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2009
107
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]bildo123[/nom]Software rendered even...though most people that spout the crisis meme aren't old enough to know the days of having a software render as an option.[/citation]

Ooh, that brings back memories of Asheron's Call and Homeworld in software mode on a friend's laptop. *cringe*

I'm thinking this thing could maybe even perform software based real-time ray tracing.
 
G

Guest

Guest
The article finishes too abruptly, I miss a discussion where apples are compared to apples: GFlops per watt to Gflops per watt, total cost against total cost, estimated total power consumption to estimated total power consumption. Pros and cons for each supercomputer. Blue Gene deliberately runs at low (half) frequencies because power consumption scales with the square of the frequency and performance scales linearly so they would rather lose some performance per core to save energy. The total cost of a supercomputer today has to factor in the energy consumption to run the thing and that is where Blue Gene usually wins.
 

seezur

Distinguished
May 20, 2004
70
0
18,640
1
[citation][nom]Sam Buddy[/nom]The trade-off between power and performance, is strongly in favor of IBMs PowerPC.I'd rather buy 116,000 PowerPC A2s (consuming 3,480kW), which would equal the performance of the 98,304 SPARC64 IXfxs (consuming 11,600kW), and save tons of money with PowerPCs lower power consumption. Plus, it's more eco-friendly.[/citation]

Good point but I think the article is missing some key details that might change your mind.

1) The cost of both systems. Granted both would be extremely high in their most maxed out configuration but it the Fujitsu solution was say several hundred thousand less, might make power consumption a moot point.

2)Physical limitations of both systems. The article does state the number of racks for the Fujitsu system but not IBM (although I'm sure it exists elsewhere) and while the number of racks is a helpful number it does not state if that is a "turn key" setup, meaning, they don't say if other equipment is needed which could, depending on the equipment could be just as many racks.

3)And this may be the biggest point missed in the comparison, support. That's right folks even supercomputers come with warranties and tech support and at this level it is a HUGE factor. Now most of the places that have computers like this installed have employees that could, in theory, support them but when you have a multi-million dollar investment sitting in a data center. It is get really hard to justify to the top brass that they let a guy who they pay less than $60K a year replace a hard drive on such an expensive piece of equipment. Nope, they hire contractors, buy support contracts or call tech support and all of that comes from the company they bought the machine from, this is where IBM really makes their money.

I'm not trying to say your point is wrong, in fact I think I would go for the IBM if I was in the market for such a beast. Just because IBM has been doing the supercomputer thing for a while now and their support staff in my country is probably more plentiful than a Japanese based company.

Just my 2 cents
 

nottheking

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2006
1,456
0
19,310
16
[citation][nom]seezur[/nom]1) The cost of both systems. Granted both would be extremely high in their most maxed out configuration but it the Fujitsu solution was say several hundred thousand less, might make power consumption a moot point.[/citation]
With professional-level computing, power consumption is NEVER a moot point. While it can safely be ignored for desktops, that's because they have this figure known as "idle TDP." With a server or supercomputer, that figure doesn't exist because these things don't run on idle, nor are they ever put on standby or shut down; they're always in use.

A 8,120 kW difference is staggering; even assuming a rather low cost of 10 cents per kWh of electricity, we're looking at $812US/hour extra for juice. That works out to well over half a million in just a single month, eating up the initial price costs and then some.

This is why peroformance-per-dollar doesn't mean anything for servers, and performance-per-watt does. To put it into perspective: each and every SINGLE watt that a server or supercomputer uses more, it'll cost an extra dollar per year of running. Then, of course, remember that datacenters are often bottlenecked by the amount of electricity that can be delivered by the grid in the first place: if your datacenter can only get 5 megawatts of available power, then that 11.6 MW SPARC-based system isn't an option, and you'd likely rather spring for the system that could get you the most performance that's possible in your constraints.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Had to post with a different nick ("anonymously"), could not post otherwise.

@seezur
You're right, I did the comparison based on the information provided in this article. I didn't dig any further, but I did take into consideration the following three Tom's articles I had read before:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-supercomputer-100-petaflops-bluegene-powerpc,13400.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/k-supercomputer-linpack-benchmark-kei,13904.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/supercomputer-top500-power-k-computer-mainframe,13979.html

These articles provide information about the rack configuration for IBMs PowerPC, and point out the enormous apetite of current supercomputers -especially the top ones- for power.
You can see why it was easy for me to pick out IBM as the better choise here. As for support, I believe IBMs support standards are on a very high level. I know nothing about support costs, though.
Your points are valid, but the difference in power consumption just blew everything else away. Energy efficiency is the deciding factor here in my opinion, and not just for the savings in the long run.

Also, @nottheking, great point made in the last paragraph.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS