Intel, AMD, Nvidia Claim Greenest Supercomputer Technology

Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]adgjlsfhk[/nom]Really, the three biggest chip makers claim the best supercomputers. How shocking. How does the Raspberry Pi one measure up?[/citation]
I'm not sure you read, but they listed the 3 top most efficient systems. Not what claims to be, but what are the most efficient, and of the top 3, all those 3 brands were present.
 
[citation][nom]abbadon_34[/nom]eh who cares, supercomputer are about power, or at least power/cost[/citation]
Exactly, Power per cost, which is what efficiency is. And the most powerful was #3 on efficiency. Therefor you may start seeing the most efficient processor setups in the newer supercomputers being built.
 

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]Exactly, Power per cost, which is what efficiency is. And the most powerful was #3 on efficiency. Therefor you may start seeing the most efficient processor setups in the newer supercomputers being built.[/citation]

There's a certain point where the annual electricity cost for powering and cooling the supercomputer exceeds the setup cost of the supercomputer.

And I'm fairly sure we're already past that point.
 

cjl

Splendid
[citation][nom]adgjlsfhk[/nom]Really, the three biggest chip makers claim the best supercomputers. How shocking. How does the Raspberry Pi one measure up?[/citation]
Actually, IBM's absence on this list is rather notable, since their Blue Gene/Q system was the best in efficiency until just recently.
 

dragonsqrrl

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2009
1,280
0
19,290
3
"46,6 million Nvidia CUDA processors"

Titan has 50,233,344 CUDA cores Gruener, not 46 million. You've already published this number before, and I've already pointed it out to be inaccurate. Where are you getting this number from? It's in neither of the articles you've sourced.

It makes me question the accuracy of other news articles I don't know as much about, because I might not know any better. I think everyone would appreciate it if you and the rest of the news team would make an attempt to correct some of these mistakes from time to time, or at least acknowledge that you've made them.
 

x3style

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2006
186
0
18,690
4
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]"46,6 million Nvidia CUDA processors"Titan has 50,233,344 CUDA cores Gruener, not 46 million. You've already published this number before, and I've already pointed it out to be inaccurate. Where are you getting this number from? It's in neither of the articles you've sourced.It makes me question the accuracy of other news articles I don't know as much about, because I might not know any better. I think everyone would appreciate it if you and the rest of the news team would make an attempt to correct some of these mistakes from time to time, or at least acknowledge that you've made them.[/citation]
Where do you think you are? Engadget? THIS IS THG, they are never wrong, the industry is basically not sticking with THG's designs. If THG says its 46,6 million then its NVIDIA's fault for putting 50,233,344 in them. ;)
 

devBunny

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2012
181
0
18,690
1
[citation][nom]Thomas Creel[/nom]I never got an answer on this but can a supercomputer play video games on super high fps?[/citation]

If you program it to, sure, why not. If you mean a game straight off the DVD then no. Greatly simplified, a supercomputer consists of a whole bunch of individual computers working together. A bog-standard game would only get to use one of them as that's all it's programmed to do.
 

devBunny

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2012
181
0
18,690
1
[citation][nom]adgjlsfhk[/nom]Really, the three biggest chip makers claim the best supercomputers. How shocking. How does the Raspberry Pi one measure up?[/citation]

You must be thinking of the Raspberry Super-Pi, which hasn't been built yet. ;-)
 

devBunny

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2012
181
0
18,690
1
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]There's a certain point where the annual electricity cost for powering and cooling the supercomputer exceeds the setup cost of the supercomputer.And I'm fairly sure we're already past that point.[/citation]

Yep. Furthermore, when a current petascale supercomputer can use the same energy as a small town, the goal of exascale supercomputers is impossible without drastic changes. It's becoming all about low power (energy) in order to achieve high power (computing).
 
[citation][nom]devBunny[/nom]If you program it to, sure, why not. If you mean a game straight off the DVD then no. Greatly simplified, a supercomputer consists of a whole bunch of individual computers working together. A bog-standard game would only get to use one of them as that's all it's programmed to do.[/citation]

Yes, but they can run an incredible simulation of running a game.
 
[citation][nom]devBunny[/nom]Yep. Furthermore, when a current petascale supercomputer can use the same energy as a small town, the goal of exascale supercomputers is impossible without drastic changes. It's becoming all about low power (energy) in order to achieve high power (computing).[/citation]

That's why the goal is so many years off... Lower power DDR4 memory and much more efficient CPUs and graphics cards will be available at the time and if they're not efficient enough for them, they can do what was done with one of those Blue Gene computers, undervolt/underclock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS